GOP Race- and Religion-Baiting Finally Pays Off

In May of this year, the Republican Party received crushing news -- it was dying:

CBS News:

For the first time, racial and ethnic minorities make up more than half the children born in the U.S., capping decades of heady immigration growth that is now slowing.

New 2011 census estimates highlight sweeping changes in the nation's racial makeup and the prolonged impact of a weak economy, which is now resulting in fewer Hispanics entering the U.S.

"This is an important landmark," said Roderick Harrison, a former chief of racial statistics at the Census Bureau who is now a sociologist at Howard University. "This generation is growing up much more accustomed to diversity than its elders."

Yes, white people were becoming just another minority in the vast, multicultural landscape of America. It was terrible. Decades of scapegoating minorities as the source of all evil in the nation -- whether it be casting Latinos as people who "refuse to learn English" or blacks who they pretty much argue are all on welfare -- had finally come back around to bite them from behind. They had been launching racist attacks against minorities for decades. These people would never vote for them in any real numbers in a million years. Richard Nixon's racist "southern strategy" turned out to be as lacking in forethought as the invasion of Iraq. And as disastrous. Publicly, Republicans either shrug their shoulders over the troubles they have with minority voters or blame Democrats for it. But in their heart of hearts, they know why minorities shun them.

Already coping with that particular demographic death sentence, the GOP received another yesterday.

CONTINUE TO POST>>

Every GOP Senate Candidate a Flatearther

I've decided that exercise is bad for you. Every time you light a candle, it gets shorter. Every time you take a drink of water, the glass gets emptier. Every time you draw off a battery, it's useful life gets shorter. Besides, I'm not the world's biggest fan of exercise, so this works out better for me.

Of course, this requires ignoring decades of research and the established opinion of the medical community. But I don't need some fancy-pants, ivory tower elitist medical degree. Common sense tells me that the more I work out, the worse off I'll be. It's a declaration I feel totally qualified to make: stop exercising everyone, it's killing you. It's all just a big scam to sell gym memberships and Gatorade. I don't care what your doctor might tell you, I'm just relying on good old American horse sense. And isn't that always better? It's certainly easier to understand than this pie-in-the-sky science stuff.

The above is basically the argument offered by global warming deniers. Sure, there are a few actual scientists who don't believe in global warming, but the vast, vast majority accept it. And the majority of people offering opinions contrary to the scientific consensus aren't scientists. So the odds are extremely good that anyone speaking against anthropogenic global warming is basically making my "no exercise" argument -- I'm ignoring decades of research, I'm ignoring the opinions of experts, and I'm going with my gut on this one. Besides, global warming is just as inconvenient for me as Al Gore said it was, so the science must be wrong. End of story.

CONTINUE TO POST>>

Fanaticism Disguised as Skepticism

If you've got a question about religion, ask an atheist. That's the short version of the findings of a Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life poll. Pew polled 3,400 Americans and asked questions about broad religious knowledge. Of 32 factual questions, the average atheist was able to answer 20.9. Meanwhile, the talk-about-God-all-the-damned-time people -- white evangelical protestants -- managed to get only 17.6 correct. If you want to know about religion, don't ask the religious -- they don't know crap.

This is one of those "man bites dog" stories that isn't as surprising as you'd think. Most atheists become atheist after being born into some faith tradition. Atheism isn't really a religious belief (disbelief can't logically be belief), so much as it's a conclusion. And it's a conclusion reached after investigation.

I'm not posting this to blow my own atheist horn. Rather, I'm making a point about skepticism. Atheists come to their disbelief for a reason. And we do it in spite of a culture that makes faith a virtue. It's the end of a process; we look at all the facts and come to a conclusion. You can't say that an atheist wants to believe in atheism, because most religions promise a lot better things than atheism does. "You get to be worm food!" isn't the best sales pitch in the world. Atheism is what you're left with after you've eliminated all the other possibilities.

CONTINUE TO POST>>

The Terrorists Among Us

America is under attack from violent religious extremists with no respect for human life. They hate our freedoms and stand against liberty. They do not respect our laws and would dismantle our Constitution. They commit crimes against Americans regularly, speak out against our system of law daily, and spread their hatred through internet chatter every minute of every day. They seek nothing less than the takeover of our nation, so they can force us all the live under the oppression of their religious laws.

Damned Christians.

Look, I'm willing to accept that there are moderate Christians. Good people who just want to live their lives the way they want. But it's hard to believe that the extremists don't speak for them when they're all so silent on their brethren's crimes. Our wake-up call actually came back in May, when a mosque in Jacksonville, Florida was firebombed by radical Christian extremists. It was overlooked -- called an isolated incident -- and we all moved on, foolishly believing that it wouldn't happen again. We aren't some backwater third world nation, we thought, surely our Christian population is civilized.

Then came the cowardly attack on a Muslim cabbie, the desecration of a mosque with urine, a suspected case of arson, and shots fired near those picking through the wreckage of that arson. Not enough? David Gibson has more:

A brick was thrown through the window of a California mosque last week and a few days earlier signs were left at the mosque that read, "No temple for the god of terrorism at Ground Zero." Earlier this month, a plastic pig inscribed with messages such as "Remember 9-11" and "MO HAM MED the Pig" was stuffed into the mailbox of another Islamic center in California. (Like Jews, Muslims have a prohibition on eating pork.)

Clearly, they hate our First Amendment freedoms. So far, I've come across one prominent Christian leader willing to speak out against this hate-wave, but even then, the condemnation was conditional.

"The First Amendment guarantees people the right to worship where they live," [Southern Baptist leader Richard Land] said. "I am calling for all people of faith and good will to stand up for the rights of our Muslim fellow citizens."

Land has criticized plans to build a mosque near the site of the World Trade Center in New York City, saying it was too close to the site of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

"This is different," he said. "There's no Ground Zero in Murfreesboro."

The message is clear. The jihad against the mosque in Murfreesboro is getting too much attention, so cool it off for a bit. But the fatwa against a Muslim community center in Manhattan still stands. Incredibly, this terrorist leader was allowed to go free and remains at large. Already, fellow Christians openly discuss carrying out terrorist attacks on their extremist websites.

Some Christians may find being tied to the extremists in their midst offensive, but I'd just point out that I'm only applying the unassailable logic of the Christian right to the Christian right. For example, toward the middle of August, jihadi talk show host Bill O'Reilly ran with the familiar theme. In defense of building Christian and Jewish houses of worship, Bill said, "Nobody would be complaining because Christians and Jews weren't involved in the 9/11 attack. Radical Muslims were. And you may remember the Muslim world largely did not condemn the al Qaeda action, while most Christians and Jews did."

But the Muslim world did condemn the 9/11 attacks. They did it right away. So I can only assume that the condemnation must either be universal or come from the leaders of his choosing before O'Reilly would accept it. We must also assume that these leaders have to actively seek out O'Reilly to make those condemnations in person, since it's clear that he couldn't be bothered to actually look for them in news stories. So I'm just holding O'Reilly to the same standard; I've chosen you, Bill. Come over to my house and condemn Christian terrorism or I'll be forced to assume you're a jihadist yourself. Really, it's the only safe assumption I could make. We can't be too careful in these dangerous times. The only wise thing to do is assume a Christian is terrorist until it's proven otherwise.

Think I'm overreacting? Consider this chilling passage from their holy book, "The Bible":

Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him."

Obviously, their holy book calls for the destruction of all infidels, as well as their cities and buildings. The arsonist in Murfreesboro was only obeying his insane god's edict. Unless people like Bill O'Reilly renounce this passage, we can only assume he supports it as well -- as all observant Christians must. Again, it's right there in their holy writings. They cannot deny it.

We mustn't let down our guard, even for a moment. Because if we do, the Christian jihadists will surely see it as a sign of weakness. We are at war with terror, no matter what form that terror takes. If we ignore the fact that we're the target of Christian terrorism, Christians will take advantage of it. It's the logic their leaders apply to the War on Terror, so it only makes sense that we apply it to them as well.

-Wisco


Get updates via Twitter

If You Liked "Fahrenheit 9/11," You're a Terrorist

The so-called "Ground Zero mosque" (which isn't actually a mosque and isn't at Ground Zero) is a mere distraction from the larger issues of unemployment, wars, and the economy. It is but a trifle and beneath the notice of intelligent people. It's a blip on the national radar screen that frivolous people have decided to make the fad of the moment. So say the Serious People in Ties. This argument tells us that congress isn't in session, the election campaigns are firing up, so we're entering the "silly season" of American politics, when demagoguery and grandstanding rear their less-than-serious heads and this isn't something we should really pay a lot of attention to. But this line of reasoning ignores the months of hysteria-whipping by the likes of Newt Gingrich and lunatic blogger Pam Geller. This has been brewing for some time and the idea that it's only now gotten the attention of the Serious People in Ties is laughable. They've watched it unfold, reported on it, and now they want to pretend it spontaneously ignited sometime last week. Apparently, the Serious People in Ties have grown weary of this particular story. Time to move on.

Salon's Glenn Greenwald noticed this "it's a distraction" trend in punditry and, as he often does, took the contrary position. According to Greenwald, the issue of Cordoba House at Park51 isn't some momentary outbreak of stupidity. Rather, it underlines a deep and growing misunderstanding of what America is all about and gives us the opportunity to ask ourselves if we like where we're headed.

[The "distraction" meme is] an artificially narrow and misguided way of understanding what this dispute is about.  The intense animosity toward Muslims driving this campaign extends far beyond Ground Zero, and manifests in all sorts of significant and dangerous ways.  In June, The New York Times reported on a vicious opposition campaign against a proposed mosque in Staten Island.  Earlier this month, Associated Press documented that "Muslims trying to build houses of worship in the nation's heartland, far from the heated fight in New York over plans for a mosque near ground zero, are running into opponents even more hostile and aggressive."  And today, The Washington Post examines anti-mosque campaigns from communities around the nation and concludes that "the intense feelings driving that debate have surfaced in communities from California to Florida in recent months, raising questions about whether public attitudes toward Muslims have shifted."

To belittle this issue as though it's the equivalent of the media's August fixation on shark attacks or Chandra Levy -- or, worse, to want to ignore it because it's harmful to the Democrats' chances in November -- is profoundly irresponsible.  The Park51 conflict is driven by, and reflective of, a pervasive animosity toward a religious minority -- one that has serious implications for how we conduct ourselves both domestically and internationally...

Case in point: the Wall Street Journal reports that "Islamic radicals are seizing on protests against a planned Islamic community center near Manhattan's Ground Zero and anti-Muslim rhetoric elsewhere as a propaganda opportunity and are stepping up anti-U.S. chatter and threats on their websites." For a mere "distraction," this seems to have serious ramifications. According to that report, "One jihadist site vowed to conduct suicide bombings in Florida to avenge a threatened Koran burning, while others predicted an increase in terrorist recruits as a result of such actions." It's obvious that this extends beyond even constitutional issues like the freedoms of speech and religion. As important as those are, there are concerns less abstract and more concrete.

But what is this doing to our rhetorical landscape? The aforementioned Pam Geller posted some quotes from one of the organizers of the Cordoba House project, Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, "proving" he's some sort of Islamic radical bent on destroying Israel and promoting terrorism in the United States. Among the evidence: Rauf likes Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, a film customers give 3-and-a-half stars on Amazon.com. Who knew there were so many terrorist sympathizers in the United States?

One of Rauf's statements that Geller finds outrageous is the following:

We tend to forget, in the West, that the United States has more Muslim blood on its hands than al Qaida has on its hands of innocent non Muslims. You may remember that the US-led sanctions against Iraq led to the death of over half a million Iraqi children. This has been documented by the United Nations. And when Madeleine Albright, who has become a friend of mine over the last couple of years, when she was Secretary of State and was asked whether this was worth it, said it was worth it.

Apparently, math hates America. What Rauf says here is undeniably true; more people died because of Iraq sanctions than have from terrorist attacks in the west. In 1999, the BBC reported, "Unicef estimates that at least 500,000 children have died, who ordinarily would have lived." Madeline Albright may have thought those deaths were worth it, but it doesn't strike me as incredibly unreasonable to disagree -- especially considering the fact that I do disagree. Again, by Geller's reasoning, this "proves" I'm a terrorist sympathizer or an Islamic extremist.

Another "radical" quote has Rauf saying, "The West needs to begin to see themselves through the eyes of the Arab and Muslim world, and when you do you will see the predicament that exists within the Muslim community." Because putting yourself in someone else's shoes is fundamentally un-American or something.

Another: "So men will say: women, you know, they're emotional, ..... whatever, whatever, and women will say: men, they're brutes, insensitive, etcetera [sic], and you have the beginning of a gender conflict. If gender is not what distinguishes us we'll look at skin colouring and say: n#####s or whities, or whatever." This one proves he's... I don't know, racist I guess. Seriously, you have to actively try to read these as offensive. Geller provides zero context (there's a surprise), so anything you try to read into it comes from your own head. And even taken out of context, nothing here seems especially bad. He talks about a one-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, which would necessitate Israel becoming a secular nation, like the US. Geller casts this as Rauf arguing that Muslims -- and I quote -- "must destroy the tiny Jewish state." Needless to say, Rauf says nothing remotely like that, it's just Geller's ham-handed attempt at spin.

I don't doubt that Geller and her crowd aren't big fans of a one-state solution or Michael Moore, but do we really need to elevate these disagreements to the level of some sort of hate speech? Is saying that a lot of people died needlessly because of the sanctions on Iraq really some sort of verbal terrorism? Is it really necessary to equate everyone who watched Fahrenheit 9/11 with Islamic extremists?

Here's the problem in a nutshell: if there's one thing I've noticed about the right over the years, it's that they never let anything go. If something is declared politically incorrect by the right, it remains verboten for decades. So, if it becomes accepted on the right that Michael Moore and criticism of US foreign policy equates to Islamic extremism, then the left can expect to be accused of it until 2020, at least. Probably longer. Republicans started accusing Democrats of socialism after FDR -- look how long it's taking them to let that one go. Similarly, Sarah Palin came just short of accusing Barack Obama of being a terrorist in the '08 presidential campaign. Notice that one fading into the background?

Now, being Muslim is becoming politically incorrect in itself. People like Geller spend tremendous amounts of energy trying to convince people that every Muslim is a terrorist and that there's no such thing as progressive or moderate Islam. If Democrats are still called socialist after WWII, imagine how long Muslims will remain terrorists. And imagine how long it'll be before it's politically correct to criticize belligerence in American foreign policy again.

So no, the focus on Park51 is not a part of the "silly season." It's a struggle for the future of America and what little sanity remains in our national discourse. Far from a distraction and beyond even questions of fundamental fairness and constitutional law, it's essential. It's the answer to a very simple question: will a new McCarthyism rise in this country, to remain a facet of our politics for decades, or will we nip this idiocy and hatred in the bud?

I know which answer I'm rooting for.

-Wisco


Get updates via Twitter

Note to 24-Hour Media: You're Just Awful at this News Stuff

Last night, I broke out the ladder, climbed up on my roof, and pointed my face to the sky -- where the airwaves live -- and shouted, "You're not helping!"

Ok, so I didn't. But I wanted to. In yesterday's roundup, I mentioned a Pew poll that found that 18% of respondents thought President Obama is a Muslim. It's not the sort of thing I normally get worked up about, since -- as I pointed out when I wrote about it -- in any poll, approximately 1 in 5 always gives an insane answer. 1 in 5 believe that space aliens walk around in people-costumes. When it comes to reporting on polling, I think we should all agree that about 20% of respondents will be shown to be either stupid or mentally ill and just cut those people out of the equation. We've got a margin of error, so call this the "crazy quotient." Or maybe lump them in with the other answers we ignore -- something like "don't know/no opinion/goofy in the head."

But the crazy quotient in this poll had some interesting qualities. Greg Sargent looked into the internals and found that (surprise!) the believe was Republican driven. But more interesting was that 60% of those who held the mistaken belief that Obama was a Muslim said they learned this from the media.





"Ha ha ha! FOX News sucks," I thought (as I often do) and went about my business. Then I came across a post by Amanda Terkel at Think Progress that made me want to go up on my roof. In response to a poll showing that the media was 60% responsible for the screwball belief that Barack Obama is a Muslim, TV talking heads had a remedy -- President Obama should go to church more, because this is somehow his fault:

And then there's this CNN screenshot, posted by Dave Weigel:



As an atheist, I could care less, really. If the president is a Muslim or a Christian or a worshiper of Aphrodite, it's not really a step up or down for me. They're all equally weird and everyone, the president included, has the constitutionally guaranteed right to believe in the magical cosmic being of their choosing.

But the answer to the problem presented in the clip is suggested by the screenshot -- stop treating every question as if it's a matter of opinion. Has the media gotten so awful, so useless, that they'll treat even disagreements over plain, easily proven facts as an argument where both sides' points are equally valid? CNN might as well have said, "1 in 5 think the President's a Muslim. The White House says he isn't. Who's right? No one knows! Color us clueless. It's all a big freakin' mystery!" And then the rest of the networks chime in with, "If he went to church more often, then we'd know. How did the White House screw this up so badly?" In bending over backwards to try to be unbiased and tell "both sides of the story," they completely fail to inform. They couldn't be doing a worse job of reporting if they were actually trying to confuse you.

Starting to feel like getting out the ladder yet? The way you handle this story is like this: "18% of respondents to a new Pew poll answered that they believe President Obama is a Muslim -- which is interesting only for the fact that it's just so completely wrong. Apparently, the respondents blame the media for this mistaken belief, so I guess we'll have to step up our game in the future. Apologies all around. Now what's the weather like in Kansas?"

Neat, clean, factual, and -- most importantly -- informative. And the last thing we need is a parade of "analysts" and "political strategists" telling us how the president ought to handle this, because it was these same opinionated blowhards who got us in this mess in the first place. You don't have to get someone's opinion on everything; sometimes, you can get away with just reporting the facts. And sometimes, the only thing you should do is report the facts... this being one of those times. They bill it as 24-hour news, not a 24-hour op-ed page. Maybe cut back on the constant editorializing for a change.

TV reporting should be fairly straightforward: just report the truth, then cut to commercial while you enjoy a nice hot cuppa STFU. When 1 in 5 believe something that's ridiculous and 60% of those mistaken believers said they learned it from the media, maybe -- just maybe -- it's time to approach journalism a little bit differently.

Because the undeniable facts show that they're blowing it. Maybe the TV wonks can put their heads together and figure out what it is they're doing wrong. My only fear is that they'd decide the only answer is to go to church more often.

-Wisco


Get updates via Twitter

The Rise of the Godless Heathens

It's a big day for science and medicine. President Obama has removed the ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Bush had banned the funding, kissing up to those who believe every fertilized ovum deserves a Social Security card. The Bush ban was -- not surprisingly -- based on a poorly thought out argument; that we shouldn't be destroying life to save life. But, even if you believed that a mindless collection of frozen cells constitutes "life," Bush's ban did absolutely nothing to save any of them. The embryos were created for in vitro fertilization and unused embryos are just discarded. All Bush managed to do was to keep those embryos from being used in research, not from being destroyed. Bush's ban didn't "save" a single embryo.

During a signing ceremony reversing Bush's executive order, Obama also signed a pledge to "restore scientific integrity in governmental decision making." Clearly, this is the first step toward an anti-human dystopia ruled by the cold hand of science.

When the controversy over stem cell research began, Republicans quickly took the position of the religious right. Embryonic stem cell research was the worst thing ever, the wanton destruction of human life by medical science gone mad. Some still believe this. "If an embryo is a life, and I believe strongly that it is life, then no government has the right to sanction their destruction for research purposes," wrote Sen. Sam Brownback in a statement.





But other Republicans are taking a different angle to criticize Obama. Speaking to CNN's John King this weekend, House minority whip Eric Cantor said, "Why are we going and distracting ourselves from the economy? This is job No. 1. Let's focus on what needs to be done."

That's right, what was once tantamount to widespread, state-sanctioned murder is now a distraction, Never mind that the time it takes away from "job No. 1" is roughly equal to the time Cantor took away from the same job to go on a CNN talking head show. This isn't some lengthy legislative process; Obama signs the order and it's all over with. This is really stretching the definition of "distraction."

I commented on this at the time. Allow me to quote myself.

[H]ow powerless has the evangelical right become that a top Republican can basically say, "Stem cell research? Pffft! Who cares about that?" It wasn't that long ago that Republicans were saying that the research was pretty much equal to a second Holocaust. Apparently, the Republican party no longer feels the need to kiss up to the religious right.

And Cantor isn't some pro-choice Republican. His pro-life voting record is as perfect as it's possible to be, earning a 0% rating from the National Abortion and Reproductive rights Action League and -- at the other end of the spectrum -- 100% from the National Right to Life Committee. But, at this moment in time, federally funding the destruction of embryos is just a "distraction."

In fact, if you think about it, you would've expected a GOP power vacuum to be filled by a religious leader with a flock of millions of guaranteed Republican voters. But that hasn't happened with this vacuum. That empty space has been filled by Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh talks the religious nutjob talk, but you get the idea that it's peripheral to him. He's a money Republican, the stereotypical fatcat -- complete with a big cigar and a mansion. The only reason he doesn't wear a top hat and spats is because it hasn't occurred to him. Rush Limbaugh tries to portray the image of the moneyed interests, the corporate boardroom, the wealthy bigwig. He's like the rapper who displays as much of his wealth as he can -- he's not just selling the entertainment, he's selling a lifestyle.

The power vacuum was filled by Limbaugh, not some religious figure, because the religious right is in disarray. And a new study shows that they're steadily losing their "culture war" against the forces of secularism.

Associated Press:

A wide-ranging study on American religious life found that the Roman Catholic population has been shifting out of the Northeast to the Southwest, the percentage of Christians in the nation has declined and more people say they have no religion at all.

Fifteen percent of respondents said they had no religion, an increase from 14.2 percent in 2001 and 8.2 percent in 1990, according to the American Religious Identification Survey.

[...]

"No other religious bloc has kept such a pace in every state," the study's authors said.

The largest bloc of what is usually called the "religious right" have traditionally been Baptists, yet there are now barely more Baptists in the US than there are those who claim no religion -- 15.8% of respondents said they were Baptist. "No religion" also outnumbered Jews, Mormons, Muslims, and Eastern Religions combined.

There is a steadily growing bloc of voters out there for whom all the God talk doesn't do a damned thing. As this group grows, the percentage of the nutjobs shrinks. And -- up until now -- it was the nutjobs that the GOP relied on most.

With "the base" steadily eroding, the Republican party is scrambling to find some footing. But they don't seem to have any idea who these people are. They oppose everything Obama and the Democrats propose and they do it in the hope that one of these issues will resonate with some new set of nutjobs -- this "Obama's a socialist" message clearly isn't getting the job done and the God talk doesn't work anymore.

Cantor can declare embryonic stem cell research a "distraction" all he wants, but it's a distraction that's already come and gone. He's going to have to find another one to complain about.

And don't bet against them finding something new to complain about. They're going to complain about everything in the hope that one of those complaints will get a big round of applause.

But they know that complaint isn't going to be religion-based. Those days seem to be over.

-Wisco

An Atheist Christmas

Ah, Christmas time. The carols and the trees and Santa and the Kentucky Fried Chicken and the belly dancers. The holly and the booze and the Christmas cakes and strippers. What does Christmas mean to you? That depends on where you happen to be.

In Japan, Christmas has more in common with St. Valentine's Day, with cakes instead of candy. There's still Santa and trees and rampant consumerism, but it's more about love of another than love of humanity. The television media runs stories about "romantic miracles" and restaurants and hotels clean up on what is basically national date night. It also marks the beginning of year-end celebrations, which is basically a month-long drunk.

Kentucky Fried Chicken has convinced everyone that the traditional western Christmas dinner is -- big surprise -- KFC and you actually have to order your Genuine Christmas Chicken Dinner beforehand. They make a killing. By the way, I'm entirely serious about this. It's true.

But real Christmas weirdness comes to us from Turkey. I wrote about this a couple years ago and it sounds awesome. Turkish Daily News reported at the time that "Turkey has for decades been having the weirdest New Year's Eve celebrations on earth. Symbols of Christmas are infused into 'crazy parties' of heavy drinking, gambling, belly dancing and even strip shows." In Turkey, they wrap Christmas and New Years Eve up together and kill two birds with one stone. Kids get gifts from Santa Claus, then everyone goes out, gets hammered, and watches belly dancers. This is a holiday I can get behind and support.





What's interesting here is that neither of these countries have a lot of Christians -- Turkey is 99% Muslim and in Japan, only 0.5% of people are Christian. In these places, Christmas is a secular holiday with Christian roots -- and those roots are pretty much ignored. The same thing has happened with many holidays in the US. Halloween and St. Valentine's day aren't spent in prayer. St. Patrick's day is about Ireland, drinking, and green clothes -- not the commemoration of a Saint.

Maybe this is what the "War on Christmas" crowd are worried about. That Christmas would be more about the Grinch and Rudolph than about Jesus and wise men. But our modern observation of Christmas only dates back to Victorian England, helped along by Charles Dickens and A Christmas Carol -- a book that doesn't have much to do with Jesus either. Think back to other traditional Christmas favorites -- The Nutcracker's actually a nightmarish story about some sort of freakish rat-monster. No Jesus there.

So the "secularization" of Christmas is hardly anything new. And, as much as the "War on Christmas" types freak out, they can't really change history -- they'd like to, but they can't. They aren't worried about anyone getting rid of Christmas at all. In fact, they aren't extremely worried about the secularization of the holiday. What they're worried about is the continued secularization of America and the decline of Christian influence. By 2030, there will be no majority religion in the United States. While I doubt Christmas is going anywhere, I'd be willing to bet that it'll start looking more like the secular holiday it's become in Japan or Turkey. America will start looking more secular as well.

In fact, there's been kind of a media narrative starting that people are turning to religion for comfort in the economic downturn. Except, they're not. A recent Gallup poll found that people aren't suddenly finding religion.

Despite some news reports to the contrary, a review of almost 300,000 interviews conducted by Gallup so far in 2008 shows no evidence that church attendance in America has been increasing late this year as a result of bad economic times. In September, October, November, and so far in December, about 42% of Americans reported that they attended church weekly or almost every week, exactly the same as the percentage who reported attending earlier in the year.

A recent story in the New York Times, written by Paul Vitello, was headlined "Bad Times Draw Bigger Crowds to Churches," and reported that evangelical churches in particular had enjoyed a "burst of new interest" since September, but also that "a recent spot check of some large Roman Catholic parishes and mainline Protestant churches around the nation indicated attendance increases there, too." Producers for NBC's "Today" show picked up this New York Times story, and it became the basis for a similarly themed feature broadcast on that show on Dec. 16.

Yet, when someone actually bothered to check this story, Gallup found that "there has been no sign of any increase this fall."

Less than half of Americans attend church regularly and that's not changing. The media meme of a super-religious electorate is a myth. In fact, despite the media's hyping of the power of "values voters" and the importance of religion in political life, a separate Gallup poll found that most respondents don't see America that way.

Two-thirds of U.S. adults today perceive that the influence of religion in American life is waning, while just 27% believe it is rising. This represents a sharp decline in the image of religion compared with only three years ago, when 50% thought its influence was on an upswing, and marks one of the weakest readings on the influence of religion in Gallup's five-decade history of asking the question.

In census numbers, the fastest growing religious group in the United States is No Religion/Atheist/Agnostic, nearly doubling in size from 1990-2001, from 8% to 14%.

Still, as a member of this group myself, I celebrate Christmas. I've got the tree and the lights and the gifts and the whole shebang. But my attitude toward Christmas is more like those Japanese and Turkish revelers. I do it because it's fun, not because it's religious; just as I do with Halloween and St. Valentine's Day.

The "War on Christmas" types will tell you that people like me are out to destroy Christmas. I'm not. But I'd argue that my Christmas has more in common with traditional yuletide celebrations than theirs. I celebrate Dickens' Christmas -- peace on Earth, help the less fortunate, that sort of thing. It's ironic that the "War on Christmas" types are right wingers who aren't big fans of all that peace and love and helping the poor stuff. Those who think they're "defending" the holiday aren't actually very Christmasy, in my book. Bill O'Reilly has much more in common with Ebenezer Scrooge than with Bob Cratchit.

Christmas isn't going anywhere, but it won't remain unchanged forever. History does not stop because we wish it would. As America becomes less Christian, Christmas will continue to become more secular. For myself, I'm all for it.

Now bring on the chicken and belly dancers.

-Wisco

The White Christian Party

The religious right are crazy. That was the big news broken by conservative columnist Kathleen Parker yesterday. For those of us who've been watching the right wing evangelical movement for decades, this revelation didn't come as much of a shock. In her column, Parker called the religious fanatics on the Republican side of the aisle "the evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy branch of the GOP."

"Simply put: Armband religion is killing the Republican Party," she wrote. "And, the truth -- as long as we're setting ourselves free -- is that if one were to eavesdrop on private conversations among the party intelligentsia, one would hear precisely that."

But this is a party that has made intellectualism a criminal offense called "elitism." Deep thinkers are not welcome, mostly because they tell uncomfortable truths. The party has made heroes of reactionary dopes who do a "gut check" to make their decisions -- George W. Bush and Sarah Palin both come to mind. The GOP has become a party of high-concept thinkers; if the explanation for a position won't fit on a bumpersticker, it's too complicated. Smarty-pants know-it-alls are not welcome. This has gone beyond anti-intellectualism and has become anti-intellect.

"[T]he GOP has surrendered its high ground to its lowest brows," said Parker. "In the process, the party has alienated its non-base constituents, including other people of faith (those who prefer a more private approach to worship), as well as secularists and conservative-leaning Democrats who otherwise might be tempted to cross the aisle."





The Republican party has bent over backwards to please the religious nuts, especially during the Bush years. And this super-service of the white Christian base has alienated other bases. In 2000, Bush owned the Muslim vote -- a traditionally conservative demographic that responds well to family-centered messaging. But the religious right has made a habit of demonizing Islam and away went the Muslim vote.

In the end, if you're not a white evangelical, you're not a real Republican. In fact, you're not even a real American. All that Sarah Palin campaign talk about a "Real America" had a basis. That's who the Republican party represents -- to the exclusion of all others -- and that's the problem. As America becomes more diverse, the political power of this bloc of voters declines.

Alan Abramowitz, the Alben W. Barkley Professor of Political Science at Emory University, explains the problem in a very wonky piece.

The decline in the proportion of married white Christians in the American electorate has been going on for a long time. Moreover, the large generational difference in the prevalence of married white Christians in the contemporary electorate suggests that this trend is likely to continue for the foreseeable future. What cannot be predicted as confidently is how party leaders will respond to this trend. Right now, Democrats appear likely to benefit from a continued decline in the proportion of married white Christians in the electorate because this group has strongly supported Republican candidates in recent elections while voters who are not married white Christians have strongly supported Democratic candidates.

As America becomes more diverse, the percentage of the population that makes up the Republican base has nosedived. Where married white Christians made up nearly 80% of the adult population in the '50s, it's declined to less than 50% today. Meanwhile, the demographics of the GOP have gone in the opposite direction. In the '50s, married white Christians made up just over 40% of all Republicans -- today they make up more than 60%. As the nation becomes less white and less Christian, the Republican party becomes more white and more Christian. I ran the numbers myself a couple of years ago and determined that Christians as a whole will become a minority religion (i.e., less than 50% of the total population) by 2030, if current demographic trends continue. By that year, there will be no majority religion in the United States.

Meanwhile, the Republican party has become the party of intolerance. Defined mainly by what they oppose, they're seen as seawall against this rising heathen tide. They may not know the numbers, but they see it happening around them. America is changing and they don't like it. What do you think all that "America is a Christian nation" stuff is about anyway? If you can't save your dominance any other way, you can try to launch some sort of revisionist narrative that makes your dominance traditional. If you can use this newly invented tradition as leverage to write your religious beliefs into law, all the better. And, when you believe that your way of life is the only possible way to be a good person, the idea of being just another minority is terrifying.

As the population changes, the Republican party becomes more homogeneous -- more white, more Christian -- as the United States becomes less white and less Christian. Being the party of white evangelicals may have worked once, but it's now making them a party of minority grievance, a regional party of the white south. Even the mountain states are bluer now.

The right is busy freaking out over Kathleen Parker's column. They should be freaking out about their future -- at least, more realistically and constructively than they have been. In August, Democratic party head Howard Dean caused a minor flap when he slipped up and referred to the Republican party as the "white party." He may have misspoken (or, more likely, unintentionally said what he was thinking), but the statement is becoming truer and truer with each election cycle.

A party based on white majority can't survive into the future. The party of religious majority can't exist in a nation of diversity. The Republican party is hampered by their reliance on those "oogedy-boogedy" white evangelicals. They may not like being told that, but it's true.

The lessons of 2006 and 2008 are clear; start losing the "party of the majority" mentality or keep losing elections.

-Wisco

God, the Unelected

The election of Barack Obama has inspired some to hope for a better future, some to consider the moment's place in history, and some to plumb new depths in their ignorance, gullibility, and lunacy. Case in point, Annenberg Fact Check felt obligated to answer a question on many idiots' minds lately; "Is Obama planning a Gestapo-like 'civilian national security force?'"

The answer, of course, is no. But the question was brought up by a Congressman from Georgia, Rep. Paul Broun, not some right wing talk radio loon like Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage."It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he's the one who proposed this national security force," Broun said. "I'm just trying to bring attention to the fact that we may -- may not, I hope not -- but we may have a problem with that type of philosophy of radical socialism or Marxism."

"That's exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it's exactly what the Soviet Union did," Broun went on. "When he's proposing to have a national security force that's answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he's showing me signs of being Marxist."

You'll notice that none of this makes any sense at all. What he seems to be saying is that Obama will be a Marxist, just like Hitler. Except, of course, Nazism was an anti-communist movement. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to make complete asses of themselves in wire service stories, I guess.





Besides, where the hell did he get this "security force" thing? Fact Check tells us:

Obama was not talking about a "security force" with guns or police powers. He was talking specifically about expanding AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps and the USA Freedom Corps, which is the volunteer initiative launched by the Bush administration after the attacks of 9/11, and about increasing the number of trained Foreign Service officers who populate U.S. embassies overseas.

A bunch of college kids earning tuition through community service -- sounds a lot less than oppressive. What's happening here is that people don't have a rational reason to hate Barack Obama, so they make up reasons. Associated Press reports on an outbreak of racist reactions to Obama's election. Burning crosses, vandalism, physical assault, and other hate crimes are on the rise.

Obama's election is "the most profound change in the field of race this country has experienced since the Civil War," said William Ferris, senior associate director of the Center for the Study of the American South at the University of North Carolina. "It's shaking the foundations on which the country has existed for centuries." Sociologist B.J. Gallagher agrees.

"The principle is very simple," he said. "If I can't hurt the person I'm angry at, then I'll vent my anger on a substitute, i.e., someone of the same race.

"We saw the same thing happen after the 9/11 attacks as a wave of anti-Muslim violence swept the country."

Basically, they see Obama's presidency as illegitimate -- not because he didn't win fair and square, but because someone like Barack Obama shouldn't be allowed to be president. AP quotes Grant Griffin, a Georgian who has no trouble being shown to be racist in a wire service piece. "I believe our nation is ruined and has been for several decades, and the election of Obama is merely the culmination of the change," he says.

When people feel that their government has failed them, they turn to what I call secondary institutional structures. These are basically institutions that aren't governmental, but seek to influence society -- political parties and churches are both examples. We see this with Islamic terrorism. People see the west as an enemy, see their governments as far too cozy with this enemy, and go to war against the enemy themselves, using religion as an excuse and a recruiting tool.

Crazy Americans are no different than crazy people anyplace else. When government fails to be insane enough, they turn to a secondary institutional structure that's crazy enough to suit them.

Raw Story:

CNN's Rick Sanchez reported on a church marquee that reads "America we have a Muslim president. This is a sin against the Lord." Mark Holick is pastor of The Spirit One Christian Center in Wichita, Kansas where the sign is being displayed.

Holick told KSNW, "The main point of the marquee is to cause the Christians to understand he is not a Christian, Again, they will call me and they will tell me that he's not a Muslim because he is a Christian. That's not the point. The point is he's not a Christian."

Yeah, that doesn't make any sense at all, but it doesn't have to. We're talking about seriously nutty people here. I'd tell Holick what I always tell these guys -- go get Jesus elected, then we'll give a damn what He thinks about America. Until then, I don't see any reason why we should care. This is what people do when their arguments don't make any sense, they borrow authority from someplace else and beat you over the head with it. "God says" is the argument they turn to when "I say" fails to persuade.

And, if you think this is just the opinion of some random nut in Kansas, you're mistaken. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich recently told Bill O'Reilly, "I think there is a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us, is prepared to use violence, to use harassment. I think it is prepared to use the government if it can get control of it. I think that it is a very dangerous threat to anybody who believes in traditional religion." This is a man who may be in the running for the chairman of the Republican National Committee. His argument is no better than that of some whackjob preacher's.

People who hate Obama because of racism have no rational argument to make, so they turn to metaphysical arguments. People who are frustrated that voters didn't reject liberalism turn to superstition where reason failed. People who hate, people who define themselves only by what they oppose, people who feel angry turn to religion to explain what would otherwise be unexplainable -- their reasons for their hatred, for their kneejerk opposition, for their anger. People always worship a deity who shares their views, while other people are always the ones who are contrary to heavenly opinion. This is really handy, since you can always borrow this likeminded god's authority and throw thunderbolts at anyone you disagree with. With faith, all things are possible -- it can even turn illogic to logic. If government allows what you don't agree with, then God will oppose it for you. Your invisible friend will always have your back.

When the guy you don't want to be president gets elected, then the real leader of America becomes God. Who needs democracy when you've got that for a fallback position?

-Wisco

The Faithless Faithful

Evangelicals have a secret weapon; a big ol' lightning bolt tossing deity who's the most powerful thing in the entire universe. There's a catch though -- for some reason, this big all-powerful being is a little short in the all-powerful department. He can't seem to do any of the stuff that he really wants to happen.

So this all-powerful deity has minions. And these minions do his will on Earth. Except they aren't very good at it either, so they sometimes call on the deity to help them. That generally goes pretty much like this:

Telegraph:

Stuart Shepard of Focus on the Family, one of America's leading evangelical groups, was shown in a video filmed at Denver's Invesco Field, where 75,000 are expected to cheer Mr Obama on Aug 28, asking Christians to pray for "torrential" rain.

"I'm talking 'umbrella-ain't-going-to-help-you rain," the former pastor and television meteorologist said. He explained on the video: "I'm still pro life, and I'm still in favour of marriage as being between one man and one woman. And I would like the next president who will select justices for the next Supreme Court to agree."

The video was later pulled and and FotF claimed it was all a joke. "If people took it seriously, we regret it," they said.

And why wouldn't people take it seriously? The problem here is that reality and this "joke" are just too similar. If you pray for rain and it doesn't happen, what then? Well, God just didn't answer the prayer. It happens sometimes -- in fact, it happens about as often as random chance would allow. When people pray for personal strength, they get it -- because it comes from them. When they pray for things to happen in the wide world, it doesn't. If the shamans at Focus on the Family could make Barack Obama bring an umbrella, then they could accomplish everything they want to accomplish. And that would kind of make this whole voting thing kind of pointless.



So the all-powerful god who isn't really all-powerful serves them much better. It's best to make your prayers as unspecific as possible. In fact, it helps if they're vague appeals for defense against the completely undefinable.

Associated Press:

Southern Baptists are organizing a nationwide prayer campaign to accompany their values-voter registration drive, seeking spiritual renewal for families and churches, and God's favor for public officials who are guided by the Bible.

[...]

The daily prayers include requests for God's guidance in voting, for the election of more "godly Christians," for God to "help churches find ways to help Christians get to the polls" and for public officials to be protected "from the attacks of Satan."

I don't know about you, but I've had enough attacks from Satan in recent elections -- but, for the record, it doesn't look like Karl Rove's sitting this one out.

Of course, those weren't the attacks they were talking about. What they are talking about is pretty hard to say. And, since it's so hard to define, it's a lot easier to claim success. It's in being too specific that you get into trouble.

One person who learned that the hard way was right wing nut and fervent (in the original sense of that word) Huckabee backer Janet Folger. Folger was convinced that Huckabee was the only standing between good god-fearin' Christians and the "criminalization of Christianity" and Hillary Clinton's secular re-education camps. Seriously, it was freakin' insane. Mitt Romney was completely unacceptable, John McCain was completely unacceptable. "There was a tier-one candidate that stood for our goals of life and marriage – that man was Gov. Mike Huckabee," she wrote. Only Governor Mike could save America.

Well, Huckabee didn't win, so Christianity is doomed. Except, it's not. Now that God refused to answer Janet's Huckaprayer, John McCain is acceptable. In fact, electing John McCain is imperative.

Here's the bottom line: If McCain is elected, we WILL get the judges we need to bring this slaughter to an end. All of our efforts and all of our labors that have taken us this far will have been worth it. If Obama is elected, we will not only see the court stacked against us with life-long appointments, we will lose every single advance we have ever made in every state, city and county.

You want to protest? Get a sign and march. We're out of time. Besides that, I'm sick of marching – I want to win: I want to restore protection to children in my lifetime.

I've given my life to the pro-life movement, and I don't have another life to give it. Neither do the 50 million children whose lives were stolen from them. If we don't take what may be our last chance, I don't believe we're going to see another one. If we choose protest over influence, Obama will not only make sure that another 50 million children lose their lives, but he'll make sure we won't recognize what's left of our nation when he's through with it.

Notice how she's not asking anyone to do any praying. Mike Huckabee was God's chosen candidate until he wasn't, now it's McCain. Janet Folger's God is inconsistent and, ironically, faithless. As a result, so is Janet Folger. Anthropologist James Frazer once described religion as a type of magic that seeks to "mollify a coy, capricious, or irascible deity by the soft insinuation of prayer and sacrifice." That doesn't work, so the faithful righties don't do it. They follow the caprices of their coy deity and pretend that the past never existed.

-Wisco

The Stupid Will Stay Stupid and the Crazy Will Stay Crazy

Maybe I've got outrage fatigue or something, because I don't get it. In fact, I wasn't even going to mention The New Yorker cover in question, but here we are on day three and this thing still has people freaking out.

In the unlikely chance that you aren't familiar with the cover by now, it's a caricature of Barack and Michelle Obama in the oval office. Michelle is dressed like a stereotypical black radical-type, with a big Angela Davis 'fro and an AK-47 on her back. Barack is dressed like Osama bin Laden. An American flag burns in the fireplace, a portrait of bin Laden hangs on the wall. To clinch it, Barack and Michelle are sharing a "terrorist fist jab."

That's right, every stupid-assed smear this side of Rev. Wright is laid out in all its ridiculous glory for all the world to see. Clearly, this is satire -- and not of the Obamas, but of the crazy and stupid people who believe all this stuff. You can't see Obama's chest, but you've got to assume he's not wearing a flag pin.

-Continued after the jump-


I can understand the Obama campaign's reaction. I doubt the outrage there is genuine. After all, here is almost every one of the smears thrown at him, right there in one place. And, where the whisper campaign comes from a shadowy, email spam source, The New Yorker has a street address. What's happening is that the magazine has become a stand-in for the mass-mailers; a tangible, brightly lit target. Team Obama can answer these anonymous smears by attacking a magazine that's put nearly every one of them on its cover.

Whether this was supposed to become the tempest in a teapot it has become is an open question, but I'm guessing no. As I said, this is "New Yorker-gate, Day III: America Freaks Out!" In fact, the outrage is in danger of overshadowing substantial news stories. You may not know this, but Barack Obama is scheduled to give a speech on Iraq and national security today. And you may not know it because we're all supposed to be freaked out over a cartoon. Wired's Threat Level blog helpfully collects a couple of representative blogosphere reactions.

John Aravosis, AMERICAblog:

A liberal publication like the New Yorker thinks it's funny to make Mrs. Obama some radical black panther, Barack Obama basically a terrorist (you'll note that he looks just like Osama bin Laden on the wall), and they're even burning the American flag in the Oval Office (that's supposed to be the White House, get it?).

They put Osama bin Laden on the wall of the Oval Office. And this is funny?

Is the New Yorker so out of touch that they don't realize that much of America, or at least too much of America, harbors these very concerns about Obama and his wife?


Jane Hamsher, FireDogLake:

... there is a striking lack of awareness of the context into which they launched it.

Fifteen percent of people in this country believe that Obama is a Muslim. You have to be really stupid to believe something like this, but as Roger Simon notes, it probably doesn't encourage people to vote for him in America today.

Most people who see this cover are just going to see the image of Obama in a turban. It reinforces a critical piece of misinformation that right wing propagandists have advanced in order to poison the political climate in this country and make it that much more difficult for a person of color to be elected president.

These people are really stupid in order to believe something like this, but they're not going to get any smarter by viewing this image.

Note what these two bloggers -- who I otherwise respect -- have to say. They aren't basing their criticism of what they think, they're basing it on what they're afraid someone else might think.

I think what might be happening is that polling is taking over some people's brains. A recent Pew poll showed that 12% of respondents still thought Barack Obama was Muslim. Worse, this number was up from 10%.

Here's the thing -- I don't even need to go look at the margin of error to know that 2% is easily within it. This isn't a rise, it's no change. In any poll, there will be a certain percentage who are just plain crazy or stupid. On this issue, that's somewhere in the neighborhood of 10%. In fact, in that same poll, 1% took a wild guess and said Obama was Jewish. Of course, if we add up all the wrong answers in the poll, it adds up to 40%. But some of those answers were "Don’t know - Heard different things" and "Don’t know - Haven’t heard enough." Combined, these two made up 25% of respondents -- better than half of all the wrong answers. In an America where some Christians believe other Christians aren't "real" Christians or aren't "Christian enough," a little mild confusion is understandable. They don't want to answer ""Not a Christian," but can't honestly answer "Christian," either. We've all seen the letters to the editor claiming this liberal or that isn't a "real Christian" because they support abortion rights, believe in evolution, or oppose mandatory school prayer. That these people would answer, "Well, he says he's a Christian, but not any kind of Christian my church accepts. Real Christians interpret the Bible the same way I do," shouldn't surprise anyone.

And there's an unfounded assumption in looking at this poll and freaking out over The New Yorker cover because of it. If we look at other polls, we see that Obama doesn't have a 40% unfavorable rating in any of them. All the favorables are above 50%, with some reaching into the 60% range. This means, contrary to the assumption, that some of that 40% who got Obama's religion wrong don't view Obama unfavorably -- in other words, they may not believe he's a Christian or a "real" Christian, but neither do they care.

It's my opinion that the overreaction to the NYer cover is based primarily on worry. They've seen polling that shows the race close nationally (polling that's already become dated), they see comments in their comment threads about how some won't vote Obama because of FISA or because they're Clinton extremists, but they're not seeing the forest for the trees.

If you break down the polling by electoral college votes, Obama has a healthy lead in all polls. Getting bogged down in trivia like this cartoon is a little panicky, in my opinion. We don't have to freak out. The way things stand right now, Barack Obama is still a safe bet.

That 10%-12% who think Obama's a Muslim are stupid and/or crazy. That cover illustration isn't going to drive anyone crazy. It's not going to drive anyone stupid, either. I believe that this percentage of the stupid and crazy is as low as it's ever going to be. I also believe that it's probably not going to get any bigger. I think these people are trapped in the amber of their own stubborn ignorance -- unchanged and unchangeable forever.

Luckily, there aren't enough of them to care about.

-Wisco

Technorati tags: politics; elections; 2008; Islam; bigotry; religion; religious right; morons; crazy people; media; blogs ;poll; The New Yorker's not a problem for Barack Obama -- trust me on this one

Holy Joe's Unholy Alliance

They call the only elected member of the Connecticut for Lieberman party "Holy Joe." Sen. Joe Lieberman is well-known for his faith -- specifically, his Jewish faith. After all, it was Sen. Joe who tried to out-holy Dubya in 2000, with a speech calling on Americans to "reaffirm our faith and renew the dedication of our nation and ourselves to God and God's purposes." Atheists like myself or Buddhists who's gods aren't real (they're karmic illusions) apparently have no place in American life -- although, I suppose we could pretend to pray, just to be polite. It wasn't quite the Orwellian nightmare that Mitt Romney's "Freedom Requires Religion" speech was, but it was scary enough in its own right.

Sen. Joe's faith is a deep, deep river, flowing straight into the heart of Israel. Holy Joe is wholly Zionist. His defection from the Democratic party comes largely from his dedication to fulfilling the neocon prophecy of Israel-friendly democracies sprouting like mushrooms in the middle east. In fact, if the spores of those mushrooms have to be sown with mushroom clouds, it'd be hard to believe that Lieberman wouldn't be proud to push the big red button himself. After all, it was Joe who suggested that we attack Iran. Like most neocons, Lieberman has gotten a little ahead of himself -- there's no real evidence that Iran's enriching uranium to weaponize it and, obviously, this means that Iran doesn't actually have nuclear weapons. But I guess a stitch in time saves nine.

All of which, to the casual observer at least, makes the following story from Max Blumenthal a little hard to figure.

Senator Joseph Lieberman is scheduled to headline Pastor John Hagee's 2008 Christians United For Israel Washington-Israel Summit this July 22. In accepting Hagee's invitation, Lieberman became the most senior elected representative confirmed to appear at the annual gala. Last year, when Lieberman spoke at Hagee's summit, he compared the Texas televangelist to the biblical prophet Moses, dubbing him "an Ish Elochim," or "a man of God." Unless he rescinds his pledge to appear at this year's summit, Lieberman can be expected to deliver another soul-stirring tribute.

He may very well rescind his pledge. Hagee, as you may remember, is the end times nutbag who had endorsed John McCain until it was revealed that Hagee thought Hitler had been sent by God and that the Holocaust was part of God's plan for the Jews.

But the weird thing is that if Joe drops the Hagee event, it'll be because of what it would look like for McCain -- who Lieberman supports -- not because Hagee's a freak. It's extremely likely that Lieberman knows all about Hagee's crazy-assed belief system. In fact, it's extremely likely that McCain has Holy Joe to thank for bringing him to Hagee. Lieberman and the end times nut are tight. John Hagee is a pro-Israel Hitler enthusiast. That may seem contradictory, but with faith, all things are possible.

If that seems a little weird to you, it is. But it's also extremely pragmatic from a Zionist viewpoint. As a Christian fundamentalist, Hagee has some pretty crazy ideas about Jews and the future of Israel. But, as a Jewish fundamentalist, Lieberman doesn't believe that crap any more than I do. Like me, Lieberman knows the "rapture" is never going to happen and, like me, he doesn't lose a lot of sleep worrying about his status as one of the "unsaved."

If it still seems weird to you that Lieberman would be so supportive of someone whose beliefs are as offensive as the Pastor's, let me boil it down to six words -- he's playing Hagee for a chump.

Hagee subscribes to a branch of Protestant theology known as "Premillenial dispensationalism," AKA among the sane as the "rapture right." These are the people who think that Tim LaHaye's Left Behind novels are practically newly discovered books of the Gospels. All of this end times stuff predicts a bunch of stuff about the Jews and Israel. Without Israel, Jesus' glorious return can't happen -- at least, not as prophesied. And God, despite being all-powerful, can't deviate from a plan one bit. I'm not really sure how you explain that one, but there ya go.

So Hagee's the leader of Christians United for Israel -- an evangelical organization that sends aid to Israel and lobbies the US on Israel's behalf. Zionists get a lot out of dispensationalists like Hagee and dispensationalists like Hagee don't want a whole lot in return. If Hagee wants to believe insane BS about Jews, Israel, Hitler, the Holocaust, etc., what does it matter? None of this rapture stuff is ever going to happen, so Hagee's just a nut who shows up on your doorstep with an armload of money and political support. Why turn him away? As far as Zionists are concerned, Hagee and American rapture nuts are useful pigeons, ripe for the plucking.

Professor of religion and Middle Eastern studies at North Park University in Chicago Donald Wagner explains dispensationalism and the phenomenon of "Christian Zionism" this way:

Briefly stated, Christian Zionism is a movement within Protestant fundamentalism that sees the modern state of Israel as the fulfillment of Biblical prophecy and thus deserving of political, financial and religious support. Christian Zionists work closely with the Israeli government, religious and secular Jewish Zionist organizations, and are particularly empowered during periods when the more conservative Likud Party is in control of the Knesset. Both the secular and religious media place Christian Zionism in the Protestant evangelical movement, which claims upward of 100-125 million members in the US. However, one would more accurately categorize it as part of the fundamentalist wing of Protestant Christianity, since the evangelical movement is far larger and more diverse in its theology and historical development.

Joe doesn't care about all that dispensationalist crap -- it's all the product of the southbound end of a northbound horse anyway -- all he cares about is the "political, financial and religious support" for Israel.

I suppose at this point you're wondering, "What's all this have to do with me?" To answer that, we have to dig into the very craziest ideas of the rapture happy. Timothy P. Weber, author of On the Road to Armageddon: How Evangelicals Became Israel's Best Friend, explains:

There is a downside to the dispensationalist/Israeli friendship. In their commitment to keep Israel strong and moving in directions prophesied by the Bible, dispensationalists are supporting some of the most dangerous elements in Israeli society. They do so because such political and religious elements seem to conform to dispensationalist beliefs about what is coming next for Israel. By lending their support -- both financial and spiritual -- to such groups, dispensationalists are helping the future they envision come to pass.

Throughout their history, dispensationalists have predicted that before the final events of the End Times can take place, the Temple must be rebuilt in Jerusalem. According to their scenario, half way through the Great Tribulation, Antichrist will enter the restored Temple and declare himself to be God. To outsiders, such predictions always seemed farfetched. But in the Six-Day War Israel gained control of the entire city of Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount. Suddenly all things seemed possible, at least to some people.

The problem is that there's already something where the Temple once stood -- the Dome of the Rock and the Al Aqsa Mosque. This is one of the key holy sites in Islam. And Christian Zionists want to see it destroyed. Not surprisingly, this doesn't make Muslims real happy. The alliance between Christian Zionists like Hagee and Jewish Zionists like Lieberman is something that's making enemies of both Israel and the US in the Muslim world.

Not that either group cares. For Christian Zionists, it would clear the way for the Antichrist and, The Omen to the contrary, that'd be a good thing. Jesus doesn't show up until the AC does it first. Remember, for some reason this all-powerful deity can't reschedule things.

Dispensationalists could care less what Muslims think. After all, what they have in mind is the end of the damned world anyway. The unsaved -- Muslim, Jew, Atheist, or whomever -- are all going to burn in the end. It doesn't matter what we want or what's sane, they've got some completely unbiblical rapture to get rolling.

In fact, this explains the Evangelical hatred toward Islam. It's not about terrorism or 9/11, it's all about the Dome of the Rock. Fellow former McCain endorser Rod Parsley called Islam an "anti-christ religion" and made the jawdroppingly insane claim that the US was "founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed." After all, if the only real obstacle to tearing down the Al Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock are Muslims, then Muslims are standing in the way of the re-Jesusing of the world. Following this insane logic, Muslims are anti-christ -- despite the fact that Jesus is a prophet in Islam. Islam must be destroyed, prophesy demands it. That hard right Zionists wouldn't mind seeing this happen either is a happy coincidence.

So John McCain may disown Hagee and Parsley. Holy Joe may do what the Almighty cannot -- change his schedule and not appear at Hagee's big "Yay for Israel" event. But as much as things change on the surface, there will be no changes below it. Relations between Israel and the US are informed, in part at least, by completely mad stories of magic horsemen and trumpets played by angels.

McCain may push these guys aside on the public stage, but people like Holy Joe will see to it that they always have a place at the table in private.

-Wisco

Technorati tags: politics; Iran; Iraq; neocon; John McCain; elections; 2008; Republican; Rod Parsley ;Islam; religion; religious right; Zionism; Israel; Joe Lieberman and John Hagee -- BFF

More Catholic than JFK?

No offense, but as an atheist, here's my take on the news; an old wizard came to America yesterday. He'll take a short tour of the northeast, do some wizard stuff with other wizards, then he'll go back to his big wizard-city in Rome. Needless to say, I don't see the visit by the pope the same way a lot of people do.

Like John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI is pretty much a mixed bag. I guess when you try to apply the religion of bronze age nomadic shepherds to the 21st century, the results are predictably iffy. While the former Cardinal Ratzinger is somewhat more conservative that his predecessor, Benedict's pretty much a 50/50. Sure, he's as homophobic as any previous pope; anti-abortion, anti-birth control, and anti-embryonic stem cell research to boot. He's also committed to expanding the use of exorcism in the world, a development that has mental health experts more than a little alarmed.

But he's also committed to world peace, fighting poverty, and leading on climate change -- under Pope Benedict XVI, the Vatican will become the world's first carbon neutral state. I guess, when you're dealing with old wizards, you get your good and you get your bad. So yay for the good and boo for the bad. Can you start to see the roots of my ambivalence here?

Another person who thinks the pope is a mixed bag is President Bush. With the possible exception of the expanded exorcism thing, what Bush sees as the good and the bad of Benedict is exactly the opposite of what I do. The anti-war, anti-poverty, environmentalist pope is a problem, while the anti-abortion, anti-stem cell, and anti-gay pope is an ally. But Bush, with approval ratings in the tank and his party's '08 candidate getting a big bear hug from an anti-Catholic demagogue, needs the ally pope more than the problematic pope.

So Bush is pushing the idea that he's more Catholic than John F. Kennedy -- literally. A puff piece put out by the Religion News Service shows us just how high the administration is shoveling it. The headline; "NEWS ANALYSIS: Is George Bush leading America's first truly Catholic presidency?"

Seriously.

Shortly after Pope Benedict XVI's election three years ago, President Bush huddled with a small circle of advisers and speechwriters in the Oval Office. As talk briefly turned to religion, the president mentioned reading one of the new pontiff's books about faith and culture in Western Europe.

Save one other soul, Bush was the only non-Catholic in the room, and it did not go unnoticed. Even the president laughed at the thought.

"I used to say that there are more Catholics on President Bush's speechwriting team than any Notre Dame starting lineup in the past half-century," said former Bush scribe William McGurn, a Catholic who was part of the meeting.

"In fact, with all due respect to John F. Kennedy, the nation's first and only Catholic president," we're informed, "Some have begun to call the Bush White House the first truly Catholic presidency."

And, in case that comparison didn't sink in, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum pounds the point in with a sledgehammer. "I don't think there's any question about it," he says. "That's why I called him the first Catholic president; he's certainly much more Catholic than Kennedy."

Even Laura's jumping in on this one. "There really was a warm relationship that developed very quickly with the president, Mrs. Bush, and Pope Benedict," says the First Lady's Chief of Staff Anita McBride. "He’s a very warm and kind person." Why, the pope's practically part of the family.

One Catholic isn't falling for this BS. That'd be some guy named Benedict XVI. While Benedict was picked up at the airport by Bush and will meet with him today, the White House is throwing a big dinner in his honor that the pontiff won't attend. The pope cites a scheduling conflict, but it's widely seen as a statement. The pope and his staff aren't idiots; they know what it looks like. It's hard to believe it's not a statement. The recent news that Bush personally OK'd meetings to find legal loopholes in torture bans couldn't have helped any, either.

So much for the "warm relationship."

Bush's problem is the good half of Benedict's 50/50. If you look at his schedule, you see he'll attend an "Interreligious Gathering at the Pope John Paul II Cultural Center" in D.C. with the theme "Peace Our Hope." He'll be presented with symbols of peace by five kids of different religions; Judaism, Jainism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam. "A greeting of interreligious leaders will be followed by a song: 'Peace Prayer,' attributed to Saint Francis of Assisi, sung by a schola cantorum," we're told.

Sounds more like Cindy Sheehan's crowd than Dubya's, doesn't it?

Bush's big problem here is that this is one of the few leaders in the world with no reason to either kiss up to him or to fear him. Bush literally has nothing to offer this man and poses no threat to him. The Imperial President finds himself in a completely unfamiliar situation -- that of having almost zero influence. Benedict can pretty much take him or leave him.

And Benedict chose "leave him" a long time ago.

The Capital Times:

[Benedict XVI] has bluntly said that Bush's pre-emptive attack on Iraq and the subsequent occupation of that country does not follow the Catholic doctrine of a "just war."

Before the invasion, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was asked whether the attack might be considered morally justified under the just-war standard. "Certainly not," he replied, explaining that "the damage would be greater than the values one hopes to save."

Rejecting arguments made by the president and many of his supporters that the United States needed to take the lead, this pope argued, "It should never be the responsibility of just one nation to make decisions for the world."

"There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq," Benedict said. "To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a 'just war.' "

Bush can't like the idea that there may not be any such thing as a "just war." Not the least because he claims to be prosecuting one. And whether or not any war can be just anymore is a conversation that this country and the world at large would benefit from. It's also a conversation this "war president" would dearly love to avoid.

So that's the news as I see it; an old wizard came over from Rome and metaphorically slapped a propaganda-addicted warlord right upside his fool head.

Yay for the good.

--Wisco

Technorati tags: politics; war ;Iraq; abortion; gay; homophobia; religion; JFK; propaganda; For those of you keeping score, Pope Benedict's Catholic, Bush is just pretending to be