Miscellanea Agnostica

Mark Sanford, the moralistic crusading governor of South Carolina who this summer skipped his state — in fact, he skipped the country! — in order to visit with his Argentine mistress, may finally have to face the consequences of his sneaky behavior. I’ve already blogged about this sniveling, contemptible character — whose backers have claimed that everyone else in the universe but him was responsible for what he did — and even went so far as to compare himself with the Biblical hero King David. But at long last he faces a number of specific ethics charges, as reported by the New York Times:

Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina will face formal ethics charges on 37 counts of using his office for personal financial gain, according to a list of allegations issued by the state ethics commission on Monday.

The charges on the list include spending state money on business-class plane tickets, instead of flying coach; using state aircraft to attend political and personal events, like the birthday party of a campaign contributor; and using his campaign fund for non-campaign expenses like a ticket to President Obama’s inauguration.

The idiot triggered this ethics probe, as well as a separate impeachment investigation in the SC legislature, by conspicuously disappearing this summer:

A separate impeachment resolution has been filed in the state legislature, but the ethics commission and the legislative action so far have dealt with different accusations. The ethics commission reviewed charges of misuse of public resources, while the impeachment resolution deals with the governor’s secret trip to Argentina in June to visit a woman with whom he was having an extramarital affair.

A legislative committee will take up the impeachment resolution on Tuesday.

It turns out that Sanford has flown high, on SC tax dollars, for a very long time … although only a few times while making booty-calls to his mistress:

The 17-page document released Monday, which is similar to an indictment, lists 18 occasions when Mr. Sanford flew business class or first class when, it alleges, “no exigencies existed to justify an upgrade from coach,” as required by state law. All but two were international flights, but in one instance Mr. Sanford flew first class from Columbia, S.C., to nearby Atlanta.

That’s just the start of it, of course. By contrast to his own behavior, Sanford has acted the role of a conscientious steward of public money, going so far as to fight off federal stimulus money offered his state, earlier this year (as reported at the time by The State):

South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford on Wednesday became the first governor to reject some of his state’s share of President Barack Obama’s economic stimulus money, spurning $700 million that he said would harm his state’s residents in the long run. …

Sanford turned down the federal money despite new data showing that his state’s unemployment rate had risen to 10.4 percent, the second highest in the country.

“We don’t think it’s a good idea to spend money that you don’t have,” Sanford said in Columbia.

Yeah yeah, governor, as though anyone believes you … because at the same time you were professing to protect the wallets of South Carolinians, you were upgrading from coach to first- and business-class, on their dimes. How nice — and hypocritical — of you.

Tags: adultery, argentina, ethics, ethics investigation, ethics violation, gop, governor, impeachment, mark sanford, religious right, republican, SC, south carolina, stimulus

Roman Catholic bishops in the US have become more militant than ever, over the last several years. (My own guess is that this is a push-back campaign in the wake of the pedophilia scandal.) At any rate, they have become more strident, sanctimonious, and intolerant. The recent healthcare-reform debate has particularly aroused the bishops’ ire. But in the midst of their having dictated legislation to suit their whims, word comes that they have — for several years — been using their positions as spiritual leaders to attempt to control the country politically.

This revelation is a product of the tension between the Kennedy family and the Roman Catholic Church to which they belong. CNN reports on this most recent development:

Rhode Island’s top Roman Catholic leader has asked Rep. Patrick Kennedy to stop taking Communion over his support for abortion rights, the diocese said Sunday.

In a statement issued Sunday, Providence Bishop Thomas Tobin said he told Kennedy in February 2007 that it would be “inappropriate” for him to continue receiving the fundamental Catholic sacrament, “and I now ask respectfully that you refrain from doing so.”

The really sad part about this debacle is that Patrick’s uncle, John F. Kennedy, was the first Catholic elected president in the US, in part because he thoroughly disavowed that his Catholic allegiances would turn him into a puppet of the Pope (which had, during the 1960 campaign, been an accusation leveled at him by Protestants). In his famous “religion speech” that year, the eventual President Kennedy had said:

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote. …

I’m curious to know exactly how things have changed so much over the nearly 50 years since then. For the past few decades, Protestant ministers have been telling people whom to vote for; and now, the Catholic bishops have started delivering marching orders to their own members, including those in Congress.

Tags: abortion, anti-abortion, bishop of providence, bishop tobin, diocese of providence, healthcare reform, john f kennedy, patrick kennedy, pro-life, providence RI, religious right, rhode island, roman catholic bishops, roman catholic church, thomas j tobin

For the last several years, Roman Catholic bishops in the US have pretty much taken marching orders from the Religious Right, which ironically is mostly Protestant evangelical and fundamentalist in nature. At least, that’s what I’ve been saying. And people have occasionally called me a fool for doing so. “The Protestants and Catholics hate each other!” I’ve been told. “The Protestants tried to derail John F. Kennedy’s campaign, claiming his election would put the Pope in the White House!”

It is true that Protestants and Catholics have been at odds since the Reformation, and even fought each other in Ireland through much of the 20th century. That the Catholic Church and the various Protestant sects are rivals, is incontrovertible.

Nevertheless, I have never doubted that the mostly-Protestant Religious Right and the Catholic bishops have been allied at least since the late 1990s — and finally some proof of this alliance has emerged. The New York Times reports on this now-overt alliance:

Christian Leaders Unite on Political Issues

Citing the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s call to civil disobedience, 145 evangelical, Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christian leaders have signed a declaration saying they will not cooperate with laws that they say could be used to compel their institutions to participate in abortions, or to bless or in any way recognize same-sex couples.

“We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence,” it says.

The manifesto, to be released on Friday at the National Press Club in Washington, is an effort to rejuvenate the political alliance of conservative Catholics and evangelicals that dominated the religious debate during the administration of President George W. Bush. The signers include nine Roman Catholic archbishops and the primate of the Orthodox Church in America. …

The document says, “We will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other antilife act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent.”

Of course, they’re tilting at windmills, because no one is currently talking about forcing any church or sect to marry gays if they don’t believe in allowing it. (In my home state of Connecticut, where gay marriage is allowed, the state Supreme Court stated clearly that this was not Constitutionally permissible.) There are also no efforts underway, and none even on the horizon, which would force (say) Catholic hospitals to perform abortions. There is also no plan to force euthanasia on anyone — anywhere — whether it be in a religious hospital or any other setting.

This document, then, and the alliance it enshrines, is based on a delusion.

That’s right, a delusion. Pure and simple.

At any rate, I’m not happy to report that my presumed alliance between the Catholic bishops and the Protestants of the Religious Right — along with the Orthodox Church, to boot — has finally been confirmed … but it is.

Tags: catholic bishops, dominionism, euthanasia, evangelical, orthodox, orthodox church, pro-choice, pro-life, protestants, religious right, roman catholic church, theocracy

I blogged early this year about disgraced evangelical pastor Ted Haggard’s then-new effort to rehabilitate his reputation, step behind a lectern again, and thump his Bible once more. He has continued this effort, and recently led a prayer group in his home in Colorado Springs. Along with that (of course) he made himself available for media interviews. In the course of one such interview, Haggard told a whopping, demonstrable lie. KMGH-7 TV in Denver has the story:

“I was always well aware of my own personal struggles, but my desire was to be more Godly,” said Haggard. “I was never a religious right, hateful, anti-gay guy — secretly running off, except right at the end. I’d say right at the end, before the crisis. That did develop a little bit stronger.”

There are many ways to show this to be a lie … i.e. that he was, in fact, always “right” and “anti-gay.” But one example is the following quotation by him, during an interview in late 2005 with Christianity Today:

“The biblical argument could be made, but not in this particular case. In Washington, D.C., our argument has to be the fact that the greatest benefit to society and to our culture and to the children of our nation would be to instill in our Constitution that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. It would be devastating for the children of our nation and for the future of Western civilization for us to say that homosexual unions or lesbian unions or any alteration of that has the moral equivalence of a heterosexual, monogamous marriage.

This is assuredly both “right” and “anti-gay.” And note, he was saying it not merely as a “Biblical” principle, but because that’s what he genuinely believed to be in the best interest of children and civilization.

Welcome, pastor Teddy, to my lying liars for Jesus club.

Tags: colorado springs CO, gay, gay marriage, gay rights, gays, homosexual, homosexuality, liars for jesus, lies, lying liars for jesus, scandal, ted haggard

Kirk Cameron and his mentor, preacher Ray Comfort, have come up with a roundabout way to condemn the teaching of evolution. They’re distributing copies of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, but with their own introduction, which essentially says that the rest of the book is evil, racist, sexist, Holocaust-promoting crap.

CNN filed this video report on their strange propaganda campaign:

Given that Darwin himself died many decades before the Holocaust, Comfort and Cameron’s position that Darwin somehow supported it, is absurd on its face. It’s safe to say that pretty much no one living in Darwin’s time could even have dreamed of such a thing ever happening.

As for Darwin being a “racist,” that’s an anachronistic interpretation.

And I’m not sure that Biblical literalists such as Comfort and Cameron should even be going anywhere near the issue of Darwin — or anyone else for that matter! — being “sexist.” The Bible itself is chock-full of outrageous sexism, as anyone can find out just by opening it up. (Here’s a fairly comprehensive catalog of scriptural passages which clearly call for women to be treated as inferior. So on that score we have yet another example of the pot calling the kettle black — which is hypocritical, of course, but then, fundamentalist Christians like being hypocritical, in spite of Jesus’ clear injunctions against it.

These lies about Darwin and evolution quite naturally place Cameron and Comfort in my lying liars for Jesus club.

Update: The Primate Diaries blog lists several specific lies that Comfort told in his “introduction” to On the Origin of Species.

Tags: biblical literalism, book, charles darwin, christian fundamentalism, christian fundamentalist, college, colleges, creationism, evolution, fundamentalism, fundamentalist, holocaust, intelligent design, kirk cameron, liars for jesus, literalism, lying liars for jesus, on the origin of species, origin of species, ray comfort, science, theory of evolution

Virginia is abuzz over the latest tripe that’s tumbled from the mouth of Marion “Pat” Robertson. Robertson, you see, is closely allied with Bob McDonnell, the Republican who was just elected Governor of that commonwealth. But now, Patty has said something that’s aroused people’s ire, as reported in the Washington Post:

In a broadcast of the 700 Club Monday night, the Virginia Beach pastor had some choice words about Islam in reaction to the shootings at Fort Hood. Robertson said that Army Maj. Nidal Hasan’s troubles were overlooked because of a politically-correct refusal to see Islam for what it is.

“Islam is a violent–I was going to say religion–but it’s not a religion. It’s a political system. It’s a violent political system bent on the overthrow of governments of the world and world domination.”

“They talk about infidels and all this. But the truth is, that’s what the game is. You’re dealing with not a religion. You’re dealing with a political system. And I think you should treat it as such and treat it’s adherents as such. As we would members of the Communist party and members of some Fascist group.”

I have only three words for Patty: Pot. Kettle. Black.

If Patty seriously believes that his own fundamentalist Christianity is not also a “political system,” then I guess he’s never heard of a decidedly Christian and political movement called “the Religious Right.” I guess he also forgot that he, himself — a Christian minister — ran for president in 1988. (Patty even has text of the speech in which he started that campaign, on his own Web site!)

At the moment there seems to be pressure on the McDonnell to disavow Robertson’s remarks. Whether he does or not, the blatantly-hypocritical irony of Robertson condemning another religion as a “political system” is just too precious.

As for whether or not Islam is a religion — Robertson denies it is one — I will just refer the reader to dictionary/reference sites on Islam:

• Dictionary.Com
• Merriam-Webster’s
• Answers.Com (multiple references)
• Compact Oxford
• Encyclopedia.Com
• Encarta

I’ll let you, Gentle Reader, decide who is right here … bona fide reference sources, or Patty Robertson?

Tags: bob mcdonnell, christian hypocrisy, christian right, Christianity, fundamentalism, hypocrisy, Islam, marion pat robertson, pat robertson, religious right, violent, violent political system, virginia

As if anyone needed any evidence that psychics and “ghost hunters” are full of it, here’s an example of them being way off. WPXI-TV in Pittsburgh reports on this fiasco, which took place in West Virginia:

It has been determined that bones found by ghost hunters inside a historic West Virginia home are those of various farm animals. The psychics were looking for paranormal activity in Aspen Manor in Wellsburg, near Steubenville, but found the bones hidden inside a wall instead. …

The psychics said they sensed someone was buried in a basement wall and heard a voice saying, “Help me. I’m stuck inside the wall.”

But as the story explains, the bones were not of a person who’d been stuck in the wall:

Officials from the Smithsonian Museum determined that none of the bones were human. The bones ranged in size from those of either horses or cattle, to those of chickens. Pig bones were also identified in the mix, officials said.

I’m sure these “psychics” will say that the cries of “help me” that they heard, were those of the animals, and not humans, as they’d presumed. After all, one can hardly expect people who hear the spirits of the dead, to be able to discern human and animal spirits, now, can one?

In case anyone is not clear: “Psychic powers” — to use a description Penn Jillette favors — are bullshit. Even famous psychics, renowned for their presumed “insights” and “abilities,” have been demonstrably shown to have been wrong, on many occasions. Just a few examples of one psychic, Sylvia Browne, having been wrong, may be seen here. It’s merely one example of many that I could provide.

Hat tip: Skeptics & Heretics Forum (on Delphi Forums)

Tags: aspen manor, bullshit, ghost hunter, ghost hunters, ghosts, psychic, psychics, skeptic, skeptical, skeptics, spirits, sylvia browne, wellsburg WV

I already blogged about an angry fundamentalist preacher in Arizona who’s prayed for Obama’s death. At the time this was unusual. Now, it’s started to become more “mainstream.” The Christian Science Monitor reports on a new fashion among the Religious Right (WebCite cached article):

Biblical anti-Obama slogan: Use of Psalm 109:8 funny or sinister?

There’s a new slogan making its way onto car bumpers and across the Internet. It reads simply: “Pray for Obama: Psalm 109:8”

A nice sentiment?

Maybe not.

The psalm reads, “Let his days be few; and let another take his office.”

Presidential criticism through witty slogans is nothing new. Bumper stickers, t-shirts, and hats with “1/20/09” commemorated President Bush’s last day in office.

But the verse immediately following the psalm referenced is a bit more ominous: “Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.”

Let me quote a larger piece of this particular psalm, so you can see how truly vicious it is:

Let his days be few;
Let another take his office.
Let his children be fatherless
And his wife a widow.
Let his children wander about and beg;
And let them seek sustenance far from their ruined homes.
Let the creditor seize all that he has,
And let strangers plunder the product of his labor.
Let there be none to extend lovingkindness to him,
Nor any to be gracious to his fatherless children
Let his posterity be cut off;
In a following generation let their name be blotted out.
(Psalm 109:8-13)

This may not be a direct threat on the President’s life; it might not even be seen as an overt call for Christians to pray for his demise (known as an interprecatory prayer). But there is no way this can be interpreted as a supportive sentiment — it’s quite the opposite. Of course, many of those who are passing this sentiment around, consider it funny, as CSM points out:

For many, the slogan is just a humorous way express disapproval for President Obama. It’s been tweeted and retweeted by Obama critics with messages like “too funny” and “an excellent prayer for America.”

Yeah, really funny there, people. Hah hah hah. Fucking hilarious.

What would Jesus say about it? I’m not sure he’d be laughing. If anything, the fact that Obama is president, means he has God’s backing! This is stated in scripture several times, such as here:

Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. (Romans 13:1-5) [Emphasis mine]

Christians who desire Obama’s death or removal from office, are violating this scriptural prescription. How Christian is that?

Hat tip: iReligion Forum (at Delphi Forums).

Tags: barack obama, bible, Christianity, christians, interprecatory, interprecatory prayer, obama, prayer, president obama, psalm, psalm 109, psalms, Religion, religious right, white house