Right-wing Christians and their respect for life

It's no surprise that the more right-wing, socially conservative you are, the more of a bigot you are. A recent poll shows that more evangelical the Christian, the less likely they are of accepting interracial marriage.

It should be no surprise when Michele Bachmann's husband, Marcus, provides us with this view of gays.

We have to understand: barbarians need to be educated. They need to be disciplined. Just because someone feels it or thinks it doesn’t mean that we are supposed to go down that road. That’s what is called the sinful nature. We have a responsibility as parents and as authority figures not to encourage such thoughts and feelings from moving into the action steps…

So he thinks that gays are barbarians and need to be educated or even disciplined? Really? That what? That gay Americans are going to destroy American civilization, and that you can educate the gay away?

Social conservatives say they respect life and this is why they are against abortions for any circumstance (rape, incest), but when it is homosexual life they do nothing but demonize. Pat Robertson, almost on the same note, thinks God will destroy the United States because some states  in the U.S. gives rights to its GLBT citizens.

Right-wing, social conservatives really have no respect for life. It is religion that informs their bigotry. The bible is rife with anti-gay stuff.

Rather they exhibit undying religious commitment which not only makes them bigots, but hypocrites -- placing religiously motived hate above people.

Has Bachmann really read the United States Constitution?

Republican Tea Party (people who supposedly love and idolize the Constitution) candidate, Michele Bachmann, believes the founding fathers worked "tirelessly to end slavery."

Has she even read the Constitution? If she has, does she remember the Three-fifths compromise? (Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3)

The Three-Fifths compromise was the deal that Northern and Southern states made where slaves only counted as 3/5ths of a person when assigning congressional representation.

I want to know how does she account for this fact? Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 does not give slaves freedom. Nor does it state that they have full equality to whites.

It does nothing like that.

In fact, it allowed slavery to continue by not explicitly banning it.

Gays in NY can marry!

It's nice to see social-conservatives and bigots get defeated.

New York state is just the seventh state legalizing gay marriage. At least there are a few states in the union that believe in human rights, not like my state, Wisconsin, with its damnable constitutional amendment in 2006 to ban gay marriage and same-sex unions.

So congrats to the happy couples!

Jefferson letter to the Danbury Baptists

Although the First Amendment does not enshrine the phrase "separation of church and state, the intent of the First Amendment is illustrated in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists.

I think it's good to remind us that there is indeed a separation between church and state from Jefferson own words and that as Jefferson expressed that religion is private matter for the believer.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

(Source)

Why do conservative Republicans demonize?

It seems whenever a Republican speaks about their opposition to their worldview, they often characterize their opposition as the most repulsive to liberty. More often or not, they usually go to extremes in casting their opposition as something that is inimical to freedom, thereby hoping to cast their political worldview as the only viable option.

For instance, take Ann Coulter.

The portrayal of Senator Joe McCarthy as a wild-eyed demagogue destroying innocent lives is sheer liberal hobgoblinism. Liberals weren't cowering in fear during the McCarthy era. They were systematically undermining the nation's ability to defend itself while waging a bellicose campaign of lies to blacken McCarthy's name. Everything you think you know about McCarthy is a hegemonic lie. Liberals denounced McCarthy because they were afraid of getting caught, so they fought back like animals to hide their own collaboration with a regime as evil as the Nazis.

In defending McCarthyism, she characterizes liberals as nothing as worse than Nazis. (Never mind the fact that the conservative, Christian Hitler persecuted liberals.) And she isn't the only conservative that does this. Newt Gingrich frequently attacks Obama as liberal who is a threat to freedom, as well as the rest of the 2012 Republican presidential candidate field.

And these are only two of the more popular representatives in the national media. In the local smaller communities, we have conservatives republicans like Amy Hemmer and Jim Hayett.

Jim Hayett asks the question (in which he thinks he answers), "Are Liberals Supporting America?" in a blog post:  

In these posts you will read direct and unarguable quotes from liberal democrats - many from our own democrat politicians - which are nothing but hate, and violent filled rhetoric that attacks the core and moral beliefs that this great country was founded on. 

Notice it is the liberals who are attacking the core beliefs and the foundation of the country (by being liars of course), and it is Jim Hayett who is calling them out on it -- so he believes.

Amy Gieger Hemmer, in a blog post entitled "Governor Mark Sanford and liberal hypocrisy" explains the "liberal" to us.

The tolerant, compassionate liberals are neither tolerant or compassionate.  They are not open-minded as they profess to be.  Look at how the liberal Obama Administration is attempting to control everything.  They want to control peoples lives.  They want to tell you what kind of car to drive.  They want to take over the banking industry.  They want more of your money.   They want to take over your health care - and in doing so, work to rid the world of those they see as unfit - those with birth defects, the sick, the elderly, the unborn.  They want to tell you where you can and cannot light up a cigarette.   They want to punish those who work hard to achieve their goals. They are the most judgemental when it comes to those who do not follow their liberal ideals - that anything goes.  Nothing is wrong.  Anything is OK.  Except if it is a conservative belief.  Or if a Republican violates moral values.  

And conservatives frequently demonize liberals as socialist, or as communist. To the conservative, being secular is bad. Going for broke, Newt Gingrich frequently refers to Obama as a "secular European socialist." Also, whenever a republican gets the chance to associate a liberal as a terrorist, they take the time to do so.

So why do conservative Republicans demonize? I'll attempt an answer.

They demonize because they are projecting, as if they know and sense that their worldview has its inherent problems and they don't want you to notice. They demonize because their political worldview is weak and they know it. They demonize because they are ideologically bankrupt and have little to offer in the marketplace of ideas. They demonize because their mandatory religious devotion describes a good/evil dichotomy, and they naturally convince themselves, uncritically, that they are on the side of justice and liberty and that liberals are the representatives of evil.

They demonize because they hate. They simply hate. They hate liberals.

They merely hate, hate, hate, all out of love and worship for their political ideology. And in doing so, they place their idolized political beliefs over tolerance of others.

Sarah Palin gets it wrong again. (As do most social-conservatives.)

Sarah Palin's flubs about history are well known. Her gaffe about Paul Revere is one of them, and her bus graphic, (on her much publicized bus tour) is just the latest example.

The graphic states that words from the pledge, "One nation, under god, with liberty and justice for all," juxtaposed next to a picture of the Constitution.

Does she realize that the phrase, "Under god", is not featured in the Constitution but added to the pledge in 1954? Does she realize that compulsory religion and compulsory affirmations of a deity are expressly un-American? The nation that she envisions is a nation dominated by her god, divisible between her sect's understanding of a god not just among unbelievers, but believers as well.

This promotion of the phrase "Under god" by social conservatives, like Sarah Palin, belies the fascism they would exact on the American people if they had the chance. They honestly believe that we are a nation, a country, sanctioned by God. And not just any God of course, but their sectarian, special God. (And in Palin's case, her church has some very special things that their god demands of voters.) Being a Pentecostal, her sect has distinct practices that differentiate itself from other Protestant practices.

The country that right-wing, social-conservatives envision when they use the phrase "Under God" is a country where they think that their actions and politics are sanctioned by God. Again, not just any god, but their sectarian, special God. And liberal democrats are no different if they think that when they utter "Under God" is that it is their god that is represented.

Political power does not flow on the behest of a deity, but from the people. A god's will, and especially the god of the Bible, is often capricious and callous and not beholden to any standard human morality.

I live in a country that is "under law" and not "under god."

Rather, I affirm the rights of people -- not of suspect religious doctrine -- to govern ourselves by writing our own laws and electing our own representatives.

God does not appoint our leaders, nor does he write our laws.

President Obama Announces 10k Afghanistan Drawdown

Big whoop.

Liberals are coming for your guns!

I remember when Obama was elected, the local gun shops quickly sold through their supplies of guns and ammunition. It was feared that an Obama administration was coming for American's guns.

It's been three years into an Obama presidency and has he come for your guns yet?

I don't think so.

If you thought that Obama was coming for your guns you are sadly mistaken and have been suckered by the right into believing that your right to a gun was threatened.

I have to laugh at you.

"Defend Biblical Marriage"

I was just browsing cable, and on CNN I saw someone who holding this sign, "Defend Biblical Marriage" during today's New York gay marriage vote.

And I thought, what a moron and had to laugh.

Defend biblical marriage? Ha Ha Ha Ha.

One doesn't have to go deep in the Bible to find examples of Biblical marriage that is decidedly not between one man and one woman. Right there in Genesis, we have marriages that are suspect. So what about the duo marriages of Lamech? (4:19) Is that Biblical? Or that of Abraham marrying his sister? (17:15-16 & 20:12) Is that Biblical?  Or his multiple concubines of Abraham? (25:6)  Is that Biblical?  Or the triple marriages of Esau? (26:34) Is that Biblical?  Or the two wives and two concubines of Jacob?  Is that Biblical?

Are these the "Biblical Marriages" that our law-makers should protect? Well?

If you believe that legislatures should protect "biblical marriage," then you are an ignorant fool. If you believe that law-makers have a duty to protect "biblical marriage," then you're homophobic and uninformed as to what exactly is in your bible and probably listen way to much to your fundamentalist pastor.

Laws have no business defending Biblical values. (Such as they are.) Laws are made to protect citizens in a civil society. So much in the Bible is anti-societal. (Stoning of disobedient children -- Deuteronomy 21:18-21.) I need to just mention a few examples to debunk any idealization of the Bible as an edification of any so called "great family values."

Furthermore, marriage is a civil institution and marriage is sanctioned by local municipalities. Marriage licenses are not issued by churches. The church does not have the say in who you get to marry.

One of the top Google hits on marriage is on Bible.org. In the article on "Marriage, Abortion and Divorce" it asserts:

The third contributing factor to the growing consensus that marriage is fast becoming obsolete is an increase in homosexual and other unnatural relationships. These sordid and perverted practices are affecting the institution of marriage. Homosexuality is the collaboration of two persons of the same sex for the purpose of promoting sexual excitement and gratification. One unauthorized source has estimated that there are in excess of five million homosexuals in the United States. All three of the above mentioned factors are strictly forbidden and strongly condemned in Holy Scripture.

My marriage (a hetro-sexual marriage) is not diminished or harmed because a same-sex couple marries. In no way is marriage diminished by same-sex marriage. Marriage is in fact, enhanced by same-sex marriage. More marriage makes more marriage. Homosexual relationships are not unnatural, sordid or perverted either. They are just not heterosexual relationships. That's all. (Oh, and the Biblical punishment in this "Holy Scripture" is death by stoning. Again, the bible shows it is the unnatural one, unnatural to a civil society.)

If your only reason in prohibiting same-sex marriage is Biblical, then you know little of your bible and forget that your place is in a civil society that is founded on equality and democracy, not on Biblical law.

You live in democracy, not a theocracy.

"Secular European Socialist"

Newt Gringrich uttered this phrase as a description of President Obama at last nights Southern Republican Leadership conference in New Orleans. It was meant as a derogatory statement for the head-wavers and amen-ers at the conference. Recall this is the same Newt who took two weeks of his presidential campaign to tour the Greek Islands.

But I quite like that description and it could apply to myself. I believe in a strong central government and one that provides a social safety-net for the people -- all under the will and supervision of the people.

Being secular is good. Being European isn't a bad thing. Europeans are largely democratic and fine people. Being a socialist isn't bad either. There are worse positions to take -- like being a communist, or radical Islamists, or a Christian fascist.

Of course, none of this is true of Obama.

He is not European. His story is exceptionally American.

He is not a socialist. He extended the Bush tax cuts.

He is not secular. Obama has participated in the (unconstitutional I might add) National Day of Prayer. He Publicly declares his Christian faith at every opportunity given. He has also continued Bush's Faith-Based Initiatives which groups who receive tax-payer money frequently discriminate against even their own co-religionists. I would prefer a "national Secular European Socialist" than a two-term fake Texas American president.

Only if he was.

All Newt is doing is playing that same old tired game that conservative Republicans like to play, and that is to demonize his opposition by degrading one's patriotism as the "other."

Newt has nothing else to criticize Obama on and has nothing left in his arsenal. He is totally bankrupt in his critique over the president and should  be ignored as a left-over from the nineties.

The Gay Litmus Test

Democrats and liberals must, from this time forward, weed out Democrats who are homophobic. If they oppose same-sex marriage or gay civil unions, they must be pushed away from the party.

Homophobes who are invariably (Conservative) Christian, by default belong to the Conservative-Christian, right-wing, Republican party. These people represent the lingering stain of bigotry.

Representatives like Senator Ruben Diaz  are bigots, and there is no room for bigots in the Democratic party and among liberals.

This Man is a Bigot

New York state Senator Ruben Diaz  is a bigot. He opposes same-sex marriage in New York. He is a pentacostal minister who is also a Democrat.


His religion informs that same-sex marriage is a bane toward God and he must therefore legislate in this way. Make no mistake as he is a man who is proud to have administered the first "Pentecostal religious service ever held inside City Hall."


His opposition to same-sex marriage is the direct result of his religion. This is not minor behavior, but concrete evidence that Christianity drives one to take positions that promote in-equality.


Diaz should be recalled from his position as representative of the people as he only represents a narrow-minded, religious worldview that is now conflated with his responsibilities as state senator. Diaz should represent the people without the distractions of one's religious proclivities. And we are to respect this homophobia because it is predicated on his religion?  No.


The man is a bigot and should be ever associated as a bigot.

Assholes

I thought Republicans had turned the corner on playing the patriotism card. After reviewing last nights second Republican candidate debate, I can only conclude that they haven't. Bachmann, Romney, Cain, and Newt all had to play that card.

They really must hate America, since they continually hate Americans. And if its the President, they hate him all that much more.

Such a disappointment. But should I really have expect anything less?

There is no such thing as moderate Republican. They are all beholden to the religious-right and the conservative-right.

They speak for an Unitied States that doesn't represent me. As left-leaning liberal, an atheist, a freethinker,  small-business owner, a husband and a father, these people on the right represent everything that is anathema to me.

Make no doubt, but these Americans would destroy me and my family if they had the chance.

And they would have you believe that they are the real Americans who are protecting the United States from people like me. They would have my head if they could legislate against it and have you praise their apparent patriotism for the oppression they would exact on Americans like me.

"Government Doesn't Create Jobs..."

You know that every time an approach is offered by a conservative Republican on job creation they invariably state that "government doesn't create jobs."

They say this with a straight-face as they hold a job that is created by government. They would have us believe that the government can not create jobs while they collect tax payer dollars in the form of their salary.

Of course, government can create jobs. That over-bloated military that Republicans word-fuck at every opportunity is the single biggest employer.

And these naysayers are the front-line recipients of such job creation.