Chris Hedges, via Alternet, via TruthDig

Religious Institutions are Ruled by the Morally Bankrupt — But Should We Be Cheering It’s Demise?

As we devolve into a commodity culture, in which celebrity, power and money reign, the older, dimming values of another era are being replaced.

It is hard to muster much sympathy over the implosion of the Catholic Church, traditional Protestant denominations or Jewish synagogues. These institutions were passive as the Christian right, which peddles magical thinking and a Jesus-as-warrior philosophy, hijacked the language and iconography of traditional Christianity. They have busied themselves with the boutique activism of the culture wars. They have failed to unequivocally denounce unfettered capitalism, globalization and pre-emptive war. The obsession with personal piety and “How-is-it-with-me?” spirituality that permeates most congregations in narcissism. And while the Protestant church and reformed Judaism have not replicated the perfidiousness of the Catholic bishops, who protect child-molesting priests, they have little to say in an age when we desperately need moral guidance.

[...]

But I cannot rejoice in the collapse of these institutions. We are not going to be saved by faith in reason, science and technology, which the dead zone of oil forming in the Gulf of Mexico and our production of costly and redundant weapons systems illustrate. Frederick Nietzsche’s Übermensch, or “Superman”—our secular religion—is as fantasy-driven as religious magical thinking.

[...]

The great religions set free the critical powers of humankind. They broke with the older Greek and Roman traditions that gods and Destiny ruled human fate—a belief that, when challenged by Socrates, saw him condemned to death. They challenged the power of the tribe, the closed society. They offered up the possibility that human beings, although limited by circumstance and human weakness, could shape and give direction to society and their own lives. These religious thinkers were our first ethicists. And it is perhaps not accidental that the current pope, as well as the last one, drove out of the Catholic Church thousands of clergy and religious leaders who embodied these qualities, elevating the dregs to positions of leadership and leaving the pedophiles to run the Sunday schools.

These religious institutions are in irreversible decline. They are ruled by moral and intellectual trolls. They have become arrogant and self-absorbed. Their sins are many. They protected criminals. They pandered to the lowest common denominator and illusions of personal fulfillment and surrendered their moral authority. They did not fight the corporate tyrants who have impoverished us. They refused to denounce a caste of Christian heretics embodied by the Christian right and have, for their cowardice, been usurped by bizarre proto-fascists clutching the Christian cross. They have nothing left to say. And their aging congregants, who are fleeing the church in droves, know it. But don’t think the world will be a better place for their demise.

As we devolve into a commodity culture, in which celebrity, power and money reign, the older, dimming values of another era are being replaced. We are becoming objects, consumer products and marketable commodities. We have no intrinsic value. We are obsessed with self-presentation. We must remain youthful. We must achieve notoriety and money or the illusion of it. And it does not matter what we do to get there. Success, as Goldman Sachs illustrates, is its own morality. Other people’s humiliation, pain and weakness become the fodder for popular entertainment. Education, building community, honesty, transparency and sharing see contestants disappeared from any reality television show or laughed out of any Wall Street firm.

[...]

The consumer culture, as Nietzsche feared, has turned us into what Chalmers Johnson calls a “consumerist Sparta.” The immigrants and the poor, all but invisible to us, work as serfs in this new temple of greed and imperialism. Curtis White in “The Middle Mind” argues that most Americans are aware of the brutality and injustice used to maintain the excesses of their consumer society and empire. He suspects they do not care. They don’t want to see what is done in their name. They do not want to look at the rows of flag-draped coffins or the horribly maimed bodies and faces of veterans or the human suffering in the blighted and deserted former manufacturing centers. It is too upsetting. Government and corporate censorship is welcomed and appreciated. It ensures that we remain Last Men. And the death of religious institutions will only cement into place the new secular religion of the Last Man, the one that worships military power, personal advancement, hedonism and greed, the one that justifies our callousness toward the weak and the poor.

My take is that the “Last Men” he refers to are the present-day fundamentalist, evangelicals, and under-educated lazy-thinkers of FuxNews.  Surely he couldn’t mean me!

A pessimist?  Or a clear-eyed realist?  Or both?

It’s a helluva read.  It gave me chills and will probably pop  into my mind, at inopportune times, for the next few weeks or months.  If he’s right, I’ll remember this whenever I see events that Hedges predicted.

But, by that time, it will be too late.  Armageddon’s tipping-point is probably nearer than I think.

“You may not be able to change the world, but at least you can embarrass the guilty.”
– Jessica Mitford

Did you hear that sound?  That loud, heavy ka-thud?  That was the sound of yet another right-wing Christian hate-mongering hypocrite hitting the ground like a big sack of bibles dropped from a plane at 14,000 feet.  That was the sound of George Rekers going down.  If you didn’t hear it, maybe you felt the shockwave underfoot.  These guys land hard, and they don’t bounce.  Not even the really gay ones.

Who is George Rekers, you ask?  You’ve probably never heard of him, and he seems to prefer it that way.  Rekers is one of the hidden puppetmaster of the hatemongering, hypocritical Christian wrong.  Er, um, sorry, I mean Christian right.

George Alan Rekers is a Baptist minister, an author and a professor of Neuropsychiatry and Behavioral Science Emeritus at the University of South Carolina School of Medicine.  He’s written a good deal on the subject of homosexuality and sexual identity.  His books include, Shaping Your Child’s Sexual Identity and Growing Up Straight: What Families Should Know About Homosexuality.  Homosexuality is Rekers’s favorite topic.  Along with his pal James Dobson, one of the Christian right’s most beloved and outspoken hate mongers, Rekers is cofounder of the Family Research Council, which has been declared a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.  According to the Miami New Times, “Its annual Values Summit is considered a litmus test for Republican presidential hopefuls, and Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter have spoken there.”

Rekers is also an officer of NARTH, the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality.  NARTH is one of those groups that advocates “conversion therapy” to “cure” homosexuals of their homosexuality.  This involves such behavior modification tricks as drugs that induce nausea and electric shock while looking at homoerotic images, watching gay porn, or being shown old TV clips of Paul Lynde and Charles Nelson Reilly.  Oh, what’s that?  You didn’t know this sort of thing went on in this day and age?  O my brothers, I’m afraid so.  It seems that not only do these people spend a lot of time concerning themselves with what consenting adults do with their genitals and not only do they harbor a venomous hatred for homosexuals, they’re also really big fans of Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange.  NARTH claims it is a secular organization but this claim is highly suspect.  For one thing, NARTH is bosom buddies – droogs, you might say – with Focus on the Family.  Also, there are the words of its cofounder, Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, taken from an article on NARTH at TruthWinsOut.org:

“We, as citizens, need to articulate God’s intent for human sexuality,” Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, President of NARTH, said in CNN’s 360 Degrees with Anderson Cooper, April 14, 2007. At the Feb. 10, 2007 Love Won Out conference in Phoenix, the “secular” therapist told the audience, “When we live our God-given integrity and our human dignity, there is no space for sex with a guy.”  Confronted with protesters at their 2006 national conference in Orlando, NARTH instructed its members to “sing a hymn or pray instead,” according to Mother Jones magazine, in its Sept.-Oct. 2007 issue.

Rekers is listed as a participating “expert on the sexual development of youth” on the website FactsAboutYouth.com.  The website is a project of the American College of Pediatricians, which sounds mighty important and legitimate, and suspiciously similar to the American College of Pediatrics, from which it broke away after the American College of Pediatrics expressed its support of same-sex parents.  The website receives support and assistance from – drum roll, please! – NARTH.

Rekers also has a couple of websites of his own.  One is TeenSexToday.com, where he offers teenagers advice about sex and assures them, “So no matter how common or ‘off the wall’ you might think your question is about teen sex, I’ve probably already studied the topic.”  His other website is ProfessorGeorge.com where you can learn everything there is to know about Dr. George Rekers.

Well, um … maybe not quite everything.

Do you sense something of a pattern in the above details about George Alan Rekers?  Homosexuality … teenagers … Christianity … homosexuality … teenagers … Christianity.  Did I mention homosexuality and teenagers?  If you have suspicions about Rekers … well, then, you win the gold cock ring.

In April of 2010, Professor/Dr./Reverend Rekers went on a ten-day trip to Europe.  Due to a recent surgery, Rekers claims his doctor told him not to lift any heavy objects.  With all the luggage he would be carting around, Rekers needed a travel assistant to help him out.  So naturally, he logged on to the website of travel assistant agency Rentboy.com to find one.

Wait a second, hold it, just hold it!  Rentboy.com, which describes itself as “The world’s largest gay escort and massage site”?  For a travel assistant?  Yes, that’s right.  And he found one!  He chose a young man named Geo who had all the necessary qualifications to be a top-notch travel assistant: 132 pounds, 5′ 9″ tall, a lean swimmer’s build, blue eyes, blond hair, versatility, a nice ass, and plenty of uncut foreskin on his large cock.  Even better, Geo’s profile claimed that he was available for “Massage, good times, travel, escort for days, nights and weekends. … For a sensual meet or companionship.  Will do anything you say as long as you ask.”  The perfect companion to haul Rekers’s luggage – and, of course, his ashes.  Praise Jesus!  Professor George’s prayers had been answered and the lord had led him to the travel assistant of his dreams.  And off they went together into the wild, wild, wild blue yonder for ten days of Euro-fabulousness.

But, as the bible tells us, “the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour,” and sometimes he walketh about in the form of a photographer from the Miami New Times.  That photographer was waiting for Rekers at Miami International Airport at the end of their ten-day luggage-hauling frolic and snapped a picture … of Rekers handling that luggage that was supposed to be too heavy for him.  According to the New Times:

Rekers said he learned (Geo) was a prostitute only midway through their vacation. “I had surgery,” Rekers said, “and I can’t lift luggage. That’s why I hired him.”  (Medical problems didn’t stop him from pushing the tottering baggage cart through MIA.)

Rekers did not deny that he contacted Geo through Rentboy.com, only that he knew Geo was a gay prostitute.  When the ugly details spread fast, though, Rekers changed his story.  In a Facebook message to blogger Joe Jervis, Rekers wrote the following:

I have spent much time as a mental health professional and as a Christian minister helping and lovingly caring for people identifying themselves as “gay.” My hero is Jesus Christ who loves even the culturally despised people, including sexual sinners and prostitutes. Like Jesus Christ, I deliberately spend time with sinners with the loving goal to try to help them. … Like John the Baptist and Jesus, I have a loving Christian ministry to homosexuals and prostitutes in which I share the Good News of Jesus Christ with them.

So, to wiggle out of this whole gay rentboy thing, Rekers is comparing himself to Jesus Christ.  A fisher of … men.  A shepherd whose rod and staff … comfort.

Contrary to false gossip, innuendo, and slander about me, I do not in any way “hate” homosexuals –

Except maybe yourself, George?

– but I seek to lovingly share two types of messages to them, as I did with the young man (Geo) … [1] It is possible to cease homosexual practices to avoid the unacceptable health risks associated with that behavior –

But ceasing those practices isn’t nearly as much fun as continuing them, is it, George?  Even while you’re devoting your life to punishing others who engage in them.

– and [2] the most important decision one can make is to establish a relationship with God for all eternity by trusting in Jesus Christ’s sacrifice on the cross for the forgiveness of your sins, including homosexual sins. If you talk with my travel assistant … you will find I spent a great deal of time sharing scientific information on the desirability of abandoning homosexual intercourse, and I shared the Gospel of Jesus Christ with him in great detail.

First, Rekers pleaded ignorance, then he pleaded arrogance.  If we are to believe him, then Rekers went to Rentboy.com – “The world’s largest gay escort and massage site!” – searched until he found the “sexual sinner” with just the right stats (Cut or uncut? Paper, plastic, or latex?  Would you like thighs with that?) and dragged him off to Europe for ten days to get him to drop to his knees and devote his life to a man who never married and spent all his time with twelve other guys.

The Family Research Council released a statement from its president Tony Perkins (yes, that’s right, Tony Perkins – you movie fans will know why that’s so damned funny):

In the past 24 hours FRC has received calls regarding Dr. George Rekers and his connection with the Family Research Council. After reviewing the historical records we did verify that Dr. Rekers was a member of the original Family Research Council board prior to its merger with Focus on the Family in 1987.

Wait a second, hold it, just hold it!  Is this guy actually trying to tell us that the Family Research Council, cofounded by George Alan Rekers, the man in question, had to review “the historical records” because they didn’t know who this guy is?  Do they think we’re intellectually comatose?  Seriously, do they really think we just fell off the goddamned idiot truck this morning?

Reports have been circulating regarding Dr. Rekers relationship with a male prostitute. FRC has had no contact with Dr. Rekers or knowledge of his activities in over a decade so FRC can provide no further insight into these allegations.

So, at all of those anti-gay conferences held and participated in by the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family – conferences attended by people from NARTH and the American College of Pediatricians and by George Rekers – they were … what?  Preoccupied?  With what?  Hauling luggage around?  Is that why they didn’t notice Rekers?  Is that why they’ve had no “knowledge of his activities in over a decade”?

While we are extremely disappointed when any Christian leader engages in the very activities that they ‘preach’ against, it is not surprising. The scriptures clearly teach the fallen nature of all people. We each have a choice to act upon that nature or accept the forgiveness offered by grace through faith in Jesus Christ and do our best to ensure our actions, both public and private, match our professed positions.

So the Family Research Council – the organization Rekers founded with his co-kneeler James Dobson – has denounced George Rekers … even though they don’t really know who he is and have no idea what he’s been up to in over a decade.  That’s it, Tony – make sure your ass is covered before you bend over for the soapbox.  In the end, of course, like all Christians, they blame “the fallen nature of all people.”  In other words – everybody’s doing it!

NARTH had a very peculiar response to all of this:

You have as much information as we do. Before this released we didn’t have this much information. All we had was a simple accusation that he was with a “rent boy” so that was all we were able to talk about with him. His answers (as well as his demeanor) showed that the story wasn’t exactly as it seamed [sic]. There are certain accusations that would and wouldn’t surprise certain people about others.

No shit, Sherlock.

This comes as a complete surprise as Dr. Rekers is not only very old –

Very old?  He’s 61!  Since when is 61 “very old?”  And even if it were “very old,” what the hell does that have to do with anything?  Old people can’t be gay?  Quentin Crisp lived to be 91 – and he was about as gay as you can get the whole time!  Of course, Quentin Crisp was man enough to be honest about it.

– and in very poor health –

Gay people can get sick, too, you moronic douchebag!  Hey, maybe he has AIDS!  Ever think of that?

– but also very nice and soft spoken –

Oh, well, that’s different.  “Nice and soft spoken”?  Why didn’t you say so in the first place?  In that case, he couldn’t possibly be gay!

– so until we have further information or proof of this incident it remains rumor and speculation.

What do they want, video of the two of them having sex?  So they could show it to some poor son of a bitch while they try to shock the gay out of him?

This is yet another rendition of a tune we’ve heard Christians sing before.  It goes like this:  “La la la la, we can’t hear you!”

What makes this story so significant is Rekers’s aggressively anti-gay work.  According to gay rights activist Wayne Besen, “While he keeps a low public profile, his fingerprints are on almost every anti-gay effort to demean and dehumanize LGBT people.  His work is ubiquitously cited by lobby groups that work to deny equality to LGBT Americans. Rekers has caused a great deal of harm to gay and lesbian individuals.”  Along with his tireless attempts to marginalize and demonize the gay community by keeping alive obsolete myths and hateful lies long proven wrong, Rekers has served “in advisory roles with Congress, the White House, and the Department of Health and Human Services and testifying as a state’s witness in favor of Florida’s gay adoption ban.” (Miami New Times)

Please open your hymnals now to that beloved old hymn, “Swing Right, Sweet Hypocrite.”  You’ve heard the song before, I’m sure.  We can’t sing the whole hymn because it’s really, really, really, really long.  But some of the stanzas include people like Mark Sanford, Ted Haggard, John Allen Burt, Roy Ashburn, everyone’s favorite airport men’s room tapdancer, Senator Larry Craig, and many, many, many others.  I simply don’t have the space, time or energy to list even half of the scandals involving Christian conservatives.  But you get the idea.  This isn’t anything new – in fact, it’s getting pretty damned old.  But it doesn’t stop.

I’m not trying to say that conservative Christians are the only ones who get caught with their pants down.  There’s plenty of pants-dropping on both sides of the aisle.  Right now, one of my prime candidates for being strung up by his genitalia from the Washington Monument is that slug John Edwards, who’s firmly on the left side of the aisle.  But conservative or liberal – that’s not the point here.  The point is hypocrisy.  We’re all humans, we all make mistakes.  But some of us insist that they have risen above that.  Those are the people I’m talking about.

The one thread that runs through these scandals is Christianity.  These are Christian men who fly their religious beliefs like flags.  They talk about “traditional values” and “family values.”  They pass judgment on those who do not live according to their religious beliefs – whether they share them or not.  They work hard to legislate against the rights of gay people, to determine what women can and cannot do with their own bodies.  Meanwhile, they’re screwing around on their wives, engaging in gay sex and fucking children, and when they get caught, they invoke the name of their savior and brag about how forgiven they are and tell everybody how wrong it is to judge them.

Look, as long as everyone is of age and consenting, you can do whatever the hell you want as far as I’m concerned.  Unroll the rubber sheets, break out the jumbo vibrating dildos, put on the scuba gear and call in the naked Episcopalian dwarves – I don’t care!  In fact, I’m all for people doing things that make them happy because we only get one life and we should make the best of it.  As long as nobody’s getting hurt, I say have yourself a party!

But if you’re a Christian and you’re determined to make sure that everyone knows you’re a Christian — as if that somehow makes you better than everyone else — and if you like to spend your time sticking your nose into other people’s personal business so you can make it known far and wide that you don’t approve of their personal business, if you work to limit the rights of those people, and it turns out that you are engaging in the very behaviors you have condemned, then you, my friend, have made yourself a big fat target.  You can talk all you want about how much Jesus loves you and forgives you and thinks you’re just swell.  But keep in mind that Jesus isn’t here.  He’s not talking.  He’s not posting your bail and he’s not coming to your defense.  And his angry, bloodthirsty, vengeful father is not the one you should be worried about.  Worry about the people you’ve hurt, the people you’ve condemned, the people whose lives you’ve damaged.  And keep in mind that you’re on your own, pal.  As the saying goes, Jesus may love you, but everybody else thinks you’re an asshole.

When I was a little boy, my cousin Kenny and I used to love to pretend we were Batman and Robin.  First, we’d fight over who had to be Robin. Then we’d don our capes – blankets or towels or whatever our mothers had handy – and we’d hunt down Catwoman, take her back to the bat cave and make her undress.  We were very imaginative.  But I digress.  Do you know why we pretended we were Batman and Robin?  We had no choice – because we weren’t Batman and Robin.  We had to pretend.  But the reality was that we were just a couple of dumb kids running around in towels looking like idiots.

That’s what these moralizing Christians do.  Christianity is a game of “let’s pretend.”  It’s the towel they pin around their necks and call a cape.  Then they prance around and tell everyone how moral and righteous they are.  They use lots of catch phrases and buzz words.  They support the family and traditional marriage, they say.  They have core values that are Christ-centered and biblically based.  They live by the Christian principles upon which this nation was founded.  They have rules they must follow – they have to oppose and condemn homosexuality and abortion and anything on the left.  As long as they oppose those things loudly enough so that everyone can hear and everyone can know how moral and righteous they are … well, then, they can go about the business of being human beings who live on planet earth.  But you know what?  Sometimes human beings are gay.  Sometimes human beings find themselves in situations where an abortion is the best choice they can make.  Sometimes when people follow their conscience, they find themselves on the left side of the aisle.  And best of all, some of those people are actually honest about all those things.

The brilliant comedian Lenny Bruce once said, “The ‘what should be’ never did exist, but people keep trying to live up to it. There is no ‘what should be,’ there is only what is.”

Those who live in the world of what they think should be rather than what is do so at their own risk – especially when they hurt others while doing it.  Sooner or later, “what should be” falls apart and you’re left with “what is.”  If you’re a moralizing hypocritical Christian who imposes his beliefs on others, “what is” can be a very lonely and unpleasant place.

Read it and weep, fundies!

Of course, this only applies to the UK.  For now.  But if it breaks the stranglehold in one country, the meme will spread.

Judge rejects ‘irrational’ idea that Christianity deserves special protection from law

Christianity deserves no protection in law above other faiths and to do so would be “irrational, divisive, capricious and arbitrary”, a senior judge said yesterday.

In the latest clash between the judiciary and Christian believers Lord Justice Laws said that laws could not be used to protect one religion above another.

He also delivered a robust dismissal to Lord Carey of Clifton, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, who had warned that a series of recent court rulings against Christians could lead to civil unrest. He called his idea for a specialist panel of judges to hear cases involving the practice of religious beliefs “deeply inimical to the public interest”.

To give one religion legal protection over any other, “however long its tradition, however rich its culture, is deeply unprincipled”, the judge said. It would give legal force to a subjective opinion and would lead to a “theocracy”.

Lord Justice Laws’s comments came in the High Court as he rejected a marriage guidance counsellor’s attempt to challenge his sacking for refusing to provide sex therapy to gay couples.

Lord Carey had given a witness statement in support of Gary McFarlane, 48, from Bristol, a member of a Pentecostal church. Mr McFarlane was seeking permission to appeal against an Employment Appeal Tribunal ruling that supported his dismissal by Relate Avon in 2008.

Rejecting Mr McFarlane’s application, Lord Justice Laws said: “We do not live in a society where all the people share uniform religious beliefs. The precepts of any one religion — any belief system — cannot, by force of their religious origins, sound any louder in the general law than the precepts of any other. If they did, those out in the cold would be less than citizens and our constitution would be on the way to a theocracy, which is of necessity autocratic.”

The judge said it was right that he should address what the former Archbishop had said because of his seniority in the Church “and the extent to which others may agree with his views, and because of the misunderstanding of the law which his statement reveals”.

Lord Carey and other Christian leaders had expressed concerns after Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury and two other appeal judges ruled last December that Lillian Ladele, a Christian registrar, was breaking discrimination laws by refusing to conduct civil partnership ceremonies.

In his witness statement Lord Carey said: “It is, of course, but a short step from the dismissal of a sincere Christian from employment to a religious bar to any employment by Christians. I believe that further judicial decisions are likely to end up at this point and this is why I believe it is necessary to intervene now.”

The fact that senior clerics of the Church of England and other religions felt compelled to intervene directly in judicial decisions was “illuminative of a future civil unrest”.

Lord Justice Laws said that Lord Carey appeared to be arguing that the courts ought to be ready to uphold and defend Christian beliefs. But the judge drew a distinction “between the law’s protection of the right to hold and express a belief and the law’s protection of that belief’s substance or content”.

The Judaeo-Christian tradition had exerted a profound influence on the judgment of legislators but to confer on it preferential legal protection was deeply unprincipled, he said. It would mean laws being imposed “not to advance the general good on objective grounds, but to give effect to the force of subjective opinion since faith, other than to the believer, was subjective”.

Andrea Williams, the director of the Christian Legal Centre, warned that the judgment would deny Christians a range of jobs because of their beliefs.

“The judge’s comments could lead in effect to a religious bar to employment, in which Christians could be prevented from being registrars, counsellors, teachers, social workers or work on adoption panels,” she said.

“We never attempted to argue that we could impose a Christian law, which the judge seems to suggest. We are simply talking about the principle of marriage, between a man and a woman, which has undergirded society for hundreds of years.”

England, having survived the turmoil of “state-sponsored religion” knows all too well that that road leads to disaster.  The populace, over 150 years, changed back and forth between the old church (Catholic) and the new church (Anglican).  They even had Cromwell’s Protectorate, a puritanical nightmare.

Cooler heads are in charge now, thank FSM!

Until we develop a vaccine for b’leeevers, we’ll have to depend on the rational thinkers to build the wall around them.  Or, as I said before, as thes regress further back into our “bad old days, when they get to 1555, we’ll just cut them loose.

Credit: Woody Guthrie (composed 1940; recorded 1944; published 1951)

Arizona is the new Alabama, c.1963. The racists “nativists” in AZ can’t get into a debate about the “brown-skinned” illegals. How do you say, “There’s a huge difference! The blacks in the South were born here! They were already legal citizens!” That’s contrary to their cultural behavior, back in the day.

The shouting has just begun, over a bill that won’t go into effect until August. But that didn’t stop one state trooper from demanding a birth certificate from an AZ truck driver. The driver wasn’t carrying it on his person; he called his wife and had her bring it to him so that he could be released from custody.  Iowa Independent (04.26.10):

The new birthers: Arizona truck driver arrested, forced to show birth certificate”

A Latino truck driver outside Phoenix was taken into custody by law enforcement at a weigh station. He pulled in to have the truck looked at, was apparently approached by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and asked for ID. He showed them his commercial driver’s license. They asked him for more ID. He told them his social security number. They cuffed him took him to the central office in Phoenix and called his wife to bring his social security card and birth certificate. The man is identifying himself to media only as “Abdon” and he is an American citizen born in the USA.

Governor Jan Brewer gave her Montblanc a real workout last week.  First, she signed the “birther” bill, making all future candidates for the presidency (of the United States, not of AZ) show “proof of citizenship eligibility”.  No word on whether President Obama will need to re-meet their standards in 2012.  However, I suspect that is their sole motive in passing this AZ legislation.

“This is a question that has been answered exhaustively,” White House spokesman Bill Burton told CNN. “I can’t imagine Arizona voters think their tax dollars are well served by a legislature that is less focused on their lives than in fringe right-wing radio conspiracy theories.”

By the way, the MSM ignored this.  But the UK didn’t.  Check here.

Second, she signed a bill that will allow AZ citizens to carry concealed weapons without the need for a permit, joining Vermont and Alaska.  USA-Today (04.16.10):

In Arizona, it’s now legal for (most) adults to carry a concealed weapon without a permit. Republican Gov. Jan Brewer just signed the legislation, putting her state in the same camp as Alaska and Vermont.

The state had issued 154,000 permits under the old law, which required background checks and instruction. Gun buyers still face federal background checks when purchasing weapons from a store.

And last, she signed into law a bill so “draconian” (the seeming consensus of opinion), it is unparalleled.  Police are allowed to shake-down any person who appears to be of Mexican heritage, if they have “cause” while performing their duties.  BUT police are required by law to do this, facing lawsuits by their local citizens if said citizens believe that their police force is not doing their job to the fullest extent.  One critic called it, “the crime of breathing while Hispanic”.

President Obama “on Tuesday warned of harassment against Hispanics under Arizona’s tough new immigration law, saying such “poorly conceived” measures can be halted if the federal government fixes the nation’s broken immigration system for good.”  AP, via HuffPost (04.27.10)

Obama’s comments came on the same day that Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano were critical of Arizona’s new law, and Holder said the federal government may challenge it. The president sought to step up Washington’s will to get an immigration deal done.

“I will bring the majority of Democrats to the table in getting this done,” Obama said in response to a question at a town hall in south-central Iowa. “But I’ve got to have some help from the other side.”

The GOP is shameless but they may recognize that this is “their very own Waterloo”.  It would be a mistake on their part, if they treat this as just a “little dustup in Arizona”.

The passion on both sides is running red hot (think:  habanero pepper!).  John McCain has waffled back and forth.  On the other hand, his daughter, Meghan, was an early voice with clear and concise rhetoric.  (Meghan, your Dad looks and sounds like a doddering fool.  Have a doctor check him over; if he hasn’t had a stroke yet, doctors may be able to intervene.)

“One Man’s Family”:  “Look, our border is not secured. Our citizens are not safe.” But the Arizona senator did not provide any additional details to back up his assertion about cars carrying illegal immigrants “intentionally causing accidents.”  John McCain on April 20.

“I believe it gives the state police a license to discriminate, and also, in many ways, violates the civil rights of Arizona residents,” Meghan McCain wrote in her column, entitled “Hate the Law, Not Arizonans.” “Simply put, I think it is a bad law that is missing the bigger picture of what is really going on with illegal immigration.”  Meghan McCain on 04.26.10

“Well, I regret it. People are free to express their views but the fact is the Arizona legislature and governor acted for one reason and that is because the federal government didn’t — did not act and carry out its responsibilities to secure our borders.“  John McCain, on Feh…News, 04.28.10

But wait!  There’s more!  Reverend Jim Wallis hates the bill:

“Wallis calls the new law a “social sin” and just issued a press release, vowing the churches “will not comply.”

Even (possible pederast) Cardinal Mahoney hates the bill:

The head of the nation’s largest Roman Catholic archdiocese has condemned a proposed Arizona crackdown on illegal immigrants, saying it encourages people to turn on each other in Nazi- and Soviet-style repression.

The measure wrongly assumes that Arizonans “will now shift their total attention to guessing which Latino-looking or foreign-looking person may or may not have proper documents,” Cardinal Roger Mahony said in his blog Sunday – a day before Arizona’s Legislature sent the immigration enforcement measure to the Republican governor.

We’re not done yet!  The boycotts are coming!

A sports correspondent for The Nation says:  No One is Illegal:  Boycott the Arizona Diamondbacks. His motivation rests on this:   “‘The D-backs organization is a primary funder of the state Republican Party, which has been driving the measure through the legislature.”

While San Francisco’s municipal government may boycott Arizona as a conference destination,  SFGate’s Phil Bronstein says:  not so fast. Boycotting Arizona a bad idea on 04.27.10

“In our great rush to protest potential discrimination, we should be careful that we don’t discriminate ourselves. Since Arizona is about 58 percent white, could we be guilty of reverse discrimination if our boycott affects some of those people who may not support their new law? Or how about the 30 percent of Arizonans who are Hispanic? It seems likely that banning SF-to-Arizona business and the reverse could end up hurting not Gov. Brewer – the evil signatory – but, instead, innocent folks just trying to get by.”

Boycotts to the North, followed by Travel Advisories from the South.

It says that the law’s passage shows “an adverse political atmosphere for migrant communities and for all Mexican visitors.”

Weaponized Frijoles Refritos:  vandals smeared refried beans in the shape of swastikas on the state Capitol’s windows.

Let’s wrap this up quickly.  Dr. Boyce Watkins says: “Immigration fight could pit blacks against brown.”  Tom Tancredo says “Arizona Immigration Law Goes Too Far, [but I] Still Support It.”

Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and KARL ROVE spoke out against it!

Finally, on a surreal note, GOP contender in Iowa:  Microchip Illegals Like Dogs

However the most heinous suggestion came from the mouth of physician Pat Bertroche who said,

I think we should catch ’em, we should document ’em, make sure we know where they are and where they are going…I actually support microchipping them. I can microchip my dog so I can find it. Why can’t I microchip an illegal? That’s not a popular thing to say, but it’s a lot cheaper than building a fence they can tunnel under.

UPDATE:  And then there is this from Greg Palast, who concludes the hysteria is misplaced because the GOP is secretly using this for voter suppression.

What moved GOP Governor Jan Brewer to sign the Soviet-style show-me-your-papers law is the exploding number of legal Hispanics, US citizens all, who are daring to vote — and daring to vote Democratic by more than two-to-one. Unless this demographic locomotive is halted, Arizona Republicans know their party will soon be electoral toast. Or, if you like, tortillas.

In 2008, working for Rolling Stone with civil rights attorney Bobby Kennedy, our team flew to Arizona to investigate what smelled like an electoral pogrom against Chicano voters … directed by one Jan Brewer.

In the category of asshattery and/or meanness, with few exceptions, the GOP takes the cake.

‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.’
‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master – that’s all.’ –Through The Looking Glass, Lewis Carroll.

I may have mentioned this before, but I’ll bring it up again:

I am both pro-life and pro-choice. Not necessarily in that order.

I admit freely and without qualms, that I am a speciesist. In that vein alone, I am bigoted. I am a bigot towards my own species. It is not that I consider lesser species to be our slaves, toys, or any other ridiculous thing. I simply value human beings above other animals. As such, I do lend value to human embryos, zygotes, blastocysts, or other variations of how a child comes to be.

Hold it right there.

This isn’t meant to be an insinuation, an inference, an implication, that any of these stages have attained the value of personhood, especially contrasted with person of the mother. The woman gets a choice. Simple enough?

My point here, is that through all these years of blogging, I’ve seen numerous EPIC FAIL arguments because of the intense polarization of the dispute. And as polarizing arguments go, both sides go too far. Ours as well as theirs. I’ll cite a few:

A. The growing child in the womb is a parasite.
This fails spectacularly, because actually, parasites don’t detach from the host, grow up, and end up taking care of the host in the host’s golden years.
B. Anybody who is pro-life is a practitioner of ‘sperm magic’
Again, fails. Sperm is only one component, so this is the logical fallacy of composition, not to mention a strawman. I find this particularly obnoxious, so do avoid this stupidity.
C. Accusations of ‘ensoulment’. I don’t need supernatural tendencies to value a child, or the beginnings of a child.

I’m sure numerous others will be brought up, and I’ll deal with those on a case-by-case basis. Here’s the point that grinds my gears:

It’s not a ‘in for a penny in for a pound’ situation. To clarify, the two sides of the issue go to ridiculous extremes. The pro-lifers holler that an embryo has full personhood value, the pro-choicers holler that it has zero. (This is also the fallacy of the false dichotomy.) As it is in real life, the actual answer lies somewhere in-between. As does my point. It’s natural, a part of the human condition, that we go to extremes. You, me, everybody, in some order, in some way, we all go overboard. And on polarizing issues, well, the extreme is almost cliché.

I can pretty much get an all around agreement that the majority of readers here love children. Why do we? Because of all the near-magical possibilities, the potentialities that can reach into the future. Most cultures are based on potentialities anyways, that foresight, looking to the future. And there are fewer more powerful symbols of that than children.

And while being pro-choice as well, I can haul out an extreme (but extremely possible) example: if say a woman who was two days away from giving birth went nutso, and decided that she was carrying the Antichrist, and wanted it cut out of her, there’s no way I could stand by and mumble that I was ‘pro-choice’, because obviously this lady’s brain has landed somewhere south of Pluto and obviously she isn’t fit to make a decision of that import.

And let’s face it: abortion is a no-win situation. Nobody’s in favor of it ‘just because’ – there’s long-term ramifications that have to be examined on a case-to-case basis. Tubular pregnancies, incestual rape (or any rape for that matter), drug addiction – it’s a necessary evil. Not a cause for celebration for anyone. The biggest concern is poverty – because being poor means a lack of education, lack of security, lack of everything that would be optimal for a child’s upbringing. Concerns such as birth control, religious folderol, and varied other variables put forth by the far right in their efforts to control the common woman.

So a wee bit o’ advice: the next time you (figuratively) inhale to bellow at some nimbulb who’s blattering on about abortion, take a bit of a breath, and think first. It’s natural to take the other side of the argument and go to extremes (I’ve done it too, guilty!) – but we promote ourselves as the rational ones, and it behooves us to walk the talk as such.

And that, dear readers, is my nickel’s worth. Spend it freely, or sock it away for a rainy day.

Till the next post, then.

On Friday, April 16, Sarah Palin spoke at the Women of Joy Conference in Louisville, Kentucky to a group of women who, like Palin, believe in a religion based on human sacrifice that regularly engages in symbolic cannibalism.  During her speech, Palin said, “Lest anyone try to convince you that God should be separated from the state, our founding fathers, they were believers.  And George Washington, he saw faith in God as basic to life.”

As tempting as it may be, I will not discuss Palin’s abysmal syntax because that would be like complaining because a duck quacks instead of singing arias.  Nor will I go into a lengthy explanation of why these remarks are enough to make little jets of blood shoot out of the eyesockets of any informed American familiar with the Constitution of the United States.  There is an abundance of information readily available that proves Palin to be flat wrong.  Rather than dissect the mind-blowing inaccuracy of Palin’s statements, I want to address the attitude on display here.  It is an attitude Palin shares with her admirers.

According to these people, America is a nation of the Christians, by the Christians and for the Christians.  It was founded by the Jesus-loving faithful to be populated by Jesus-loving faithful and its laws and Constitution were based on the bible.  Some seem to believe that the Constitution was simply copied out of the bible word for word.  These people want prayer to be mandatory in public schools and civic functions – not just any prayer, but prayer to their specific god, the victim of their beloved gory human sacrifice (as depicted in Mel Gibson’s popular 2004 homoerotic BDSM porn film), their lord and savior Jesus Christ.  This reveals not only their unfamiliarity with the Constitution and the intent of the founding fathers, but also their unfamiliarity with the bible, which claims Jesus Christ himself told his followers not to pray in public, but to go to their closets where they wouldn’t be seen or heard and wouldn’t make arrogant spectacles of themselves (Matthew 6:5 – 8).  Of course, it’s much easier for one to believe the bible is the infallible revealed word of god if one doesn’t know what’s in it, just as it’s much easier to believe the Constitution says whatever you want it to say if you simply choose to ignore what it really says.

These same people are fond of saying, “America – love it or leave it!”  For decades now, this slogan has been emblazoned on bumper stickers and T-shirts and has been shouted at anyone who does not agree with those who shout it.  The shouters believe that anyone who has not pitched a tent in their particular political camp hates America and takes undue advantage of its freedoms.  You disagree with the government when a Jesus-loving, flesh-eating, blood-drinking Christian Republican is in office?  Then you hate America and should leave.  You agree with the government when a godless, Marxist, America-hating Democrat is in office?  Then you hate America and should leave.  You don’t support any and all wars in which America participates?  Then you hate America and should leave.  You don’t go to church?  Then you hate America and should leave.  You don’t believe in god?  Well, in that case, these people will pack your bags for you and, at their own expense, put you on the next bus to godless Europe.

I find this baffling.  Most of the people this group identifies as unpatriotic haters of America are simply trying to go about their business in a country that they, in reality, appreciate and love a great deal, a country which they feel not only free but duty-bound to criticize when they disagree with its actions or upkeep.  America is, after all, a country where dissent is not only allowed but needed.  It is a free society in which you don’t have to agree with anything anyone says, but you have to agree that they have just as much right to say it as you have to say whatever’s on your mind.  In fact, America was created by dissenters!  Of course, it helps if both sides of the disagreement are inhabiting the same reality.  As Daniel Patrick Moynihan so eloquently put it, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.”  But the “love it or leave it” crowd seems to think that anyone who disagrees with or doesn’t like their America should get the hell out of it.

There’s just one problem.  Their America doesn’t exist and never has.

America is and always has been a secular nation.  Yes, it’s true that the population of this country is predominantly Christian, but that has nothing to do with the government, which recognizes no religion and allows and accepts all religions – and all who are not religious.  The freedom to believe or not to believe, to worship or not to worship is part of what makes America such a great country.  One of the keys to maintaining that greatness is to keep religion out of government and government out of religion.  The daring experiment known as the United States has not always succeeded in this, but it is a country that is constantly evolving.  More than 230 years after it opened for business, America is still growing into itself.  Church and state have not always been kept as separate as they should be and mistakes are still being made and corrected, made and corrected.

For example, in March of this year, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the phrase “one nation under god” in the Pledge of Allegiance is not a prayer or a recognition of religion, but instead invokes patriotism.  The court claimed that it is “a recognition of our founders’ political philosophy that a power greater than the government gives the people their inalienable rights.”  This, of course, suggests that those of us who do not believe in god and do not think that any of our rights come from such a being are unpatriotic.  Sooner or later, this will be challenged again.  This is how America works – it feels it’s way along.  Don’t forget that once upon a time in this country, black people were bought and sold like property and women were not allowed to vote.  We’ve moved past that, we’ve grown, evolved.  We will continue to do so.

Unless the “love it or leave it” crowd has its way.

This group labors under the weight of the delusion that America was created only for people exactly like them.  They think this used to be a white Christian theocracy in which they got everything they wanted and there was no disagreement or dissent allowed, and somehow, bad people have come along and changed it into a country in which – gasp! – folks are allowed to have other opinions, other beliefs, or – even bigger gasp! – no beliefs.  Now they are angry, and they are determined to change the country back to the way it never was.  They are so committed to this delusion that they simply turn their noses up at the intent of the founding fathers, at the words of the men who shaped this nation, and at the Constitution – just as they turn their noses up at science when it disagrees with their superstitions and myths, and just as they turn their noses up at their own lord and savior Jesus Christ when he says they should go home and pray in private and leave everybody else the hell alone (apparently Jesus is good enough to eat, but not good enough to obey).  In the last couple of decades, their delusion has become so complete that, for them, it has taken on the appearance and texture of solid, tangible, three-dimensional reality.

In the beginning, there was Rush.  Then followed the flood of angry, mean-spirited, logic-defying, fact-trampling Christian right babble – Fox News (facts are not “fair and balanced,” they simply are – only opinions can be “fair and balanced,” but opinions are not “news,” and on Fox News, opinions are not “fair and balanced”), Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham and all the others.  Now add to that group Sarah Palin, who has become their patron saint.  These talking heads have made the delusion of the “love it or leave it” crowd a kind of reality, an alternate universe that exists side-by-side with this universe, the universe in which the Constitution of the United States exists, the universe in which our founding fathers lived.  For years now, these people have lived in a bubble in which everything they watch on TV and listen to on the radio has told them that they are right, that this country was founded on Christian principles, that there is no separation of church and state, that all of our founding fathers were devout, Jesus-loving, flesh-eating, blood-drinking Christians.  This bubble has allowed them to become utterly confident that this nation used to be what they think it used to be, but that some bad people have changed it into something else and must be stopped.  They place this template over reality so that no matter where they look, no matter what they see or hear, they are able to continue this delusion uninterrupted.  I live in an area of California in which I am surrounded by these people.  They know no other reality.  If you try to discuss with them the facts, no matter how gently, they react exactly like an addict in denial who’s been told he has a problem and needs to get help – they argue, then they get angry, then furious, then comes a storm of personal attacks, sometimes threats, and then they stomp away in a rage.  Like angry little children, they clap their hands over their ears and shout, “La la la la, I can’t hear you!”

Then something happened in 2008 that threw a wrench into their delusion generator.  A Democrat was made the President of the United States.  But not just any Democrat, no – a BLACK Democrat.  This has made it impossible for them to maintain their delusion.  Even when that fantasy template is placed over reality, there’s still one very big problem for these people – there’s a black man in the White House.  It’s right there, plain as day.  Even Fox News, the window into their alternate universe, cannot erase the fact that Barack Obama is black, so even when the deluded watch it with the expectation of having their delusion nourished, what they see instead disrupts their delusion:  A black man in the White House.  Somehow, right here in the United States of America, the country that Jesus built, the majority of the nation voted a black man into the White House!  Not only that, but a black man with the name Barack.  Hussein.  Obama.

Wait a second – what the hell kind of a name is that?  With a name like that, he couldn’t have been born in this country, could he?  Of course not!  No real ‘Mericans would name their kid that.  And what about Hussein?  That’s a Muslim name, ain’t it?  What decent Christian ‘Mericans would name their kid Hussein?

The bubble in which they’ve been living has popped and they are very, very angry.  Although they don’t seem to realize it, they are also very, very confused.  Now, all across the land on talk radio and at Tea Party rallies and at Sarah Palin’s poorly phrased speeches, you can hear their cry:  “WE’RE TAKING OUR COUNTRY BACK!”

But from whom?  Who stole the country that never existed?  In order for bad people to take over the country, they would have to change or abolish the Constitution and make the country into something it wasn’t before.  The Constitution is still there, and it still says the same thing – that the government will neither enforce nor prohibit the practice of any religion.  Read it again if you haven’t recently and try to find something in that document – anything at all – that makes this a Christian nation.  It’s not there.  The “love it or leave it” crowd claims it is – but it’s not.  They also claim that this country was built on Christian principles, but plenty of documentation – most notably Article 11 of the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli, which states, quite unambiguously, “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion” – proves otherwise.  They claim that our founding fathers were Christians, but the words left behind by Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and others – some of which are quite acidic about religion in general and Christianity in particular – clearly state otherwise.  Although it has suffered some mighty blows over the years, the Constitution is still in place, none of the founding fathers have risen from the dead to declare their acceptance of Jesus Christ as their personal lord and savior, and America is still America.  So how can the “love it or leave it” crowd hope to take back their Christian nation built on Christian principles by Christians for Christians if it wasn’t that in the first place and no one has taken it away from anyone?  They can’t, of course.

They can’t take it back.  But they can take it.  If we let them.

Am I the only one who finds it odd that the very people most likely to shout, “America – love it or leave it!” are the same people who seem to be very unhappy with America as it is and want to change it into something it isn’t now and never has been?  These people don’t love America.  If you doubt me, just listen to them!  They have big problems with the Constitution of the United States, so big that they claim it states things it doesn’t.  It’s obvious that this Constitution doesn’t work for them and they want it to go away.  They have big problems with the secular government of the United States, so big that they want that government to adopt their religion and recognize it in an official capacity.  They say this is a Christian nation, but we do not have a Christian government, so clearly they want a Christian government.  That is their goal!  It’s obvious that this government doesn’t work for them and they want it to be replaced with one that does.

Do these people have any business shouting “America – love it or leave it!” to anyone who disagrees with them when it seems pretty clear that they do not love it?  They don’t even seem to like it!  America gives them the freedom to believe and worship as they please, but they abuse that right by demanding that their religion be king of the hill, that it be injected into government, that everyone be required to pray as they pray and recognize their god.  For them, the freedom of religion is not enough and they seem determined to get what they want.  When they say they want to take the country back, it seems that they, like Sarah Palin, are simply inarticulate and unable to express themselves clearly.  It would seem that what they really mean is this:  They want to overthrow the secular government of the United States, abolish the Constitution as it currently exists and turn this into a Christian theocracy.

That is un-American.  That is unpatriotic.  That is the attitude of people who live in a country they hate so much that they want to overthrow it, dominate it, remake it in their own image.  When it comes to the separation of church and state, they don’t care what the Constitution says, they don’t care what the founding fathers intended – just as, when it comes to public prayer, they don’t care what Jesus Christ, who they believe to be the son of god, said.  They want what they want and they just don’t care about anything else.

And goddammit, there’s a black man in the White House!

They have wrapped themselves in the American flag, commandeered words like “freedom” and “patriotic” and “traditional” and “values” and are using them against the very country that affords them the freedom to do all these things.  If they get their way, you can kiss freedom goodbye.  And all they need to get their way is our silence and inaction.  All they need to get their way is our continued fear of making waves, our fear of offending someone, making someone angry.  They certainly don’t care about making waves or offending or angering people.  They’re happy to do those things.  They are bullies – bullies for Jesus.  They own talk radio and the window into their alternate universe regularly kicks ass in the TV “news” ratings, and with those tools, they are confusing an increasingly uninformed electorate and capturing hearts and minds.  They are well on the way to overthrowing this nation, and all they need from us is a little more polite confrontation avoidance.

It’s time to start calling this what it is – an attempt to overthrow the United States of America and turn it into a fascist theocracy.  It’s time to start telling the truth and saying it to their faces.  You want to throw out the Constitution by which this country is governed?  You want the United States to be a Christian nation?  Then you are unpatriotic.  Then you hate this country.

America – love it or leave it!

S.E. Cupp’s commentaries on Tucker Carlson’s new conservative website The Daily Caller. You can read her in the online New York Daily News, and you can see her in her role as TV personality/commentator on Faux Fox and CNN.

Who is S.E. Cupp?

She is an American conservative political commentator and writer, and co-author of the book Why You’re Wrong About the Right with Brett Joshpe. She is also a strong “defender of the faith”. Her newest book is titled Losing Our Religion: The Liberal Media’s Attack on Christianity. Just another fundie crying persecution about the evil liberal media and the evils of evolution? Guess again. S.E. Cupp claims to be an atheist who is defending Judeo-Christian values which she says is what this country was founded upon. In her just released book mentioned above, she also defends creationism. Confused yet?

From her book site:

From her galvanizing introduction, you know where S. E. Cupp stands: She’s an atheist. A non-believer. Which makes her the perfect impartial reporter from the trenches of a culture war dividing America and eroding the Judeo-Christian values on which this country was founded. Starting at the top, she exposes the unwitting courtship of President Obama and the liberal press, which consistently misreports or downplays Obama’s clear discomfort with, or blatant disregard for, religious America—from covering up religious imagery in the backdrop of his Georgetown University speech to his absence from events surrounding the National Day of Prayer, to identifying America in his inaugural address as, among other things, “a nation of non-believers.” She likens the calculated attacks of the liberal media to a class war, a revolution with a singular purpose: to overthrow God and silence Christian America for good. And she sends out an urgent call for all Americans to push back the leftist propaganda blitz striking on the Internet, radio, television, in films, publishing, and print journalism—or invite the tyrannies of a “mainstream” media set on mocking our beliefs, controlling our decisions, and extinguishing our freedoms.

She claims to be an atheist, but her commentary and the content of her books prove otherwise. Is she just using the Christian base in order to stir up support for her conservative bias? It’s either that or she is a liar when claiming to be an atheist.

Steve Levingston has written this commentary about S. E. Cupp at The Washington Post.

Cupp skips the facts in arguing against evolution

This is the article I read first before doing some background research on Cupp. When I read in Wiki that she is an atheist, I had to dig further because they could be wrong. I found that is indeed what she claims herself to be in her own biography at Simon and Schuster.

Here are some highlights from Levingston’s article:

Now she has a new book due out next week called “Losing Our Religion: The Liberal Media’s Attack on Christianity,” with a foreword by Mike Huckabee. The former presidential candidate vouches for Cupp’s devotion to facts in arguing her points: She “uses the sharp blade of careful research, thoughtful reasoning, and brilliant logic,” he writes, adding “she reaches a level of substance many writers twice and thrice her age only hope for.”

Huckabee, like other fundies compliments her “sharp blade of careful research, thoughtful reasoning and brilliant logic” because she is speaking out in support of his cherished Christian values and willful ignorance.

The thrust of Cupp’s argument is summed up in her introduction in which she says the American media, “with careful, covert nudges from the Obama administration,” are leading a revolution. “This revolution, already in full throttle around the country,” she writes, “is being waged against you and me and every other American, and its goal is simple: to overthrow God, and silence Christian America for good.”

She sounds just like a Christian fundie to me who feels threatened by the ever-increasing number of people giving up the mythology in lieu of Science and reason.

Levingston brings to our attention the chapter in her book titled “Thou Shalt Evolve”:

It is important to distinguish between rhetoric and fact and to hold authors accountable for the information they impart to the public. Statements of fact should have no trouble withstanding educated scrutiny. Mike Huckabee endorses Cupp’s methods. Her “substance,” as Huckabee terms it, is scattered throughout the book. So let’s single out one chapter to zero in on, as a measure of the entire work. I have chosen Chapter Four – Thou Shalt Evolve. In this chapter, Cupp sums up her take on evolution like this: “The debate over the legitimacy of evolution isn’t really about a battle between fact and fiction. It’s about Christianity, and the liberal media’s attempt to eradicate it from all corners of society.”

And here is what Joshua Rosenau has to say in response to Cupp’s chapter on evolution: (”Rosenau is public information project director at the National Center for Science Education, which is a not-for-profit organization devoted to the teaching of evolution in public schools. Among its 4,000 members are scientists, teachers, clergy, and people holding a variety of religious beliefs.”)

S.E. Cupp’s handling of science and religion misrepresents the nature of evolution, obscures the science of biology, and dismisses the deeply-held religious views of most Christians outside of the fundamentalist subculture. This is the sort of misrepresentation which leads her to concoct an anti-Christian conspiracy on the part of reporters, and – bizarrely – to say that Darwin is “quite literally the Anti Christ” for liberals.

Cupp presents creationism as “a counter-argument” to evolution, yet never provides a clear account of what evolution is, nor what she thinks creationism means.

I am deeply insulted when dumb shits claim to be one of us.

Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

Many, if not most Christian Republicans don’t want the government and their tax money used to help the general public with things like health care and other social programs. They claim to want as little government interference as possible, but they hypocritically and constantly push for “faith based” programs which promote their own version of god delusions onto the general population. They have gotten their way with interjecting “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance long after it was written, and the placement of “in God We Trust” on our country’s currency. We are forced to swear in court on their mythology book, to say it when taking the oath for public office and when joining the military (unless we make a fuss about it, which can have negative outcomes when we do). In many places their Ten Commandments from their book of woo is on display in government buildings and even schools (until someone makes an issue of it). They want to force our children to pray along with them in public schools, even though they are free to pray to themselves any time they want without bothering anyone else. They feel the need to drag everyone forcefully into their “faith”.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU Press Mention) “It’s incredibly hypocritical that Sarah Palin, who disapproves of government involvement in just about anything, now suddenly wants the government to help people be religious,” Barry Lynn, the executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, told ABC News. “It is wildly inconsistent with her views on limited government to get the government involved in matters of faith.”"

If one really understands the foundations this country was built on, there should be no question as to if America is a Christian nation. But Sarah Palin and others who hold her fundamentalist sky daddy beliefs just don’t get it. On Friday, Sarah Palin said that it’s mind-boggling to suggest that America is not a Christian nation.

“Lest anyone try to convince you that God should be separated from the state, our founding fathers, they were believers,” said Palin. “And George Washington, he saw faith in God as basic to life.”

“In Washington’s farewell address, he wrote ‘Of all the dispositions and habits that lead to political prosperity, religion, faith, morality are indispensible supports,’” she continued. “So Women of Joy, remember that, and remember that even today this nation needs you.”

According to ABC News “two groups dedicated to the separation of church and state are now speaking out against her, arguing that she is misreading the founders’ intent.”

A spokesman for the Secular Coalition for America told ABC News that Palin is misconstruing the founders’ intent on matters of church and state.

“While the founders’ views on religion varied from person to person, there is no doubt that they believed strongly that religion had no place in government,” said Paul Fidalgo, the communications manager for the Secular Coalition for America. “John Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli which stated in no uncertain terms that ‘the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.’

Palin told the women in attendance, whom she referred to as a “mom of faith movement,” that they should not listen to critics who would make them feel that their movement is “all a low-cost brand of ignorance.”

That’s exactly what it is, though. A “low-cost brand of ignorance”. She describes the fundamentalist religionist mindset perfectly. I call it “willful ignorance”.