Archive for the “Christianity” Category
Christians and their religion
Here’s something that’s not surprising, way down south in the
Bible Belt Bobble Bayelt state of Mississippi. As the Biloxi Sun Herald explains, a judge there assigns Bible essays to youthful offenders (WebCite cached article):
Judge Albert Fountain offers youths found with alcohol an offer most don’t refuse.
In part, they must write him a 1,000-word essay in order to to keep the conviction off their records and avoid hefty costs.
They can write the entire essay about the effects of alcohol, but Fountain recommends they give him 500 words each on that and on the Book of Revelation, one of the most feared books in the Bible.
This is such an obvious violation of separation of church and state, that I can’t see why a sitting judge could even be allowed to get away with it. Then again, this is Christocratic Mississippi … where little things like the First Amendment just aren’t all that important.
The good judge claims there’s no force involved:
“I don’t force them to do it. It’s their choice.”
However, as explained in the article, there actually is force involved:
Those who accept the plea offer must hand over their driver’s license for 10 days and maintain good behavior, and are placed on 90 days of non-reporting probation. The case is then non-adjudicated and it stays off their record.
Those who don’t accept the offer are fined $500, ordered to pay a state assessment of $155.75 and lose their license for 90 days. And the conviction stands as a misdemeanor record.
So these kids have a choice: Write the essay, and skate on the charges; or not write the essay, and be punished (in not just one, but three different ways). To say there’s no coercion here is a clear lie on the judge’s part. That places him in my “lying liars for Jesus” club.
Why Revelation, one might ask? Because, as the judge himself admits, it’s the most terrifying book of the Bible:
“When they read Revelation, they can’t help but think about what we’re heading for in the future if we don’t do the right thing,” Fountain said.
“I’ve had them come back with tears in their eyes,” he said.
“They tell me it’s a scary book to read. I can’t force them to do it, but all I can do is plant a seed.”
Yep, that’s good old-fashioned Christian psychological terror: “Say, do, and believe what we order you to … or you’ll BURN IN HELL FOR ALL ETERNITY!!! Mwa ha ha ha ha ha!” Of course, neither Judge Fountain, nor the rest of his fellow Christofascists, see this as a problem. They’re willing to say and do anything in order to make “believers” out of others. They truly think the end justifies the means. As long as they’re saving souls for their precious Jesus, nothing else is important … even brazenly violating the Constitution, then lying about it, are acceptable for this sort of militant Christianist.
Photo credit: BenRR, via DeviantArt.
Tags: albert fountain
, biloxi MS
, book of revelation
, christian terror
, criminal justice
, eternal perdition
, first amendment
, harrison cty
, harrison cty MS
, judge albert fountain
, liar for jesus
, liars for jesus
, lying liar for jesus
, lying liars for jesus
, psychological terror
, psychological terrorism
, Separation of church and state
No Comments »
Note: There have been a few updates on this. See below.
Indiana is poised to make discrimination against gays legal. As the Indianapolis Star reports, that state’s legislature just passed SB 101, which will do precisely that (WebCite cached article):
Controversial religious freedom legislation that could protect business owners who don’t want to provide services for same-sex couples is poised to become law in Indiana.
The Republican-controlled Indiana House approved the measure Monday on a 63-31 vote, largely along party lines. Five Republicans joined 26 Democrats in opposing the bill.
The vote likely clears a path for the hot-button legislation to become law. The Senate already approved a slightly different version of the bill last month and Senate author Dennis Kruse, R-Auburn, said he plans to concur with the House version, possibly later this week.
The bill will then go to Gov. Mike Pence, who said Monday he plans to sign the legislation.
Once this law is passed, it will grant relief to a large number of militant Indiana Christianists, because until now they’ve been deathly afraid of catching gay cooties or something. Now, they’re free to treat gays as non-human or even non-existent. Woo hoo! What freedom that must be!
It looks as though this law is going to cost Indiana, though. They stand to lose a couple of conventions over it: the annual gaming convention Gen Con (cached), as well as the 2017 Disciples of Christ convention (cached). I don’t expect either of these will make the Christofascists in Indianapolis change their minds, but it will cost businesses a lot of money (especially the annual Gen Con). I haven’t quite figured out why Christianists are so willing to pay this price, just to not have to deal with gays.
Update: Governor Mike Pence did sign this bill; it’s now law in Indiana (cached). His position — ridiculously enough — is that the principles in this law are already the law of the land (he said, according to federal law and the state constitution). That only leads to the obvious question of why this law was even needed in the first place. To date, neither Pence nor anyone else has summoned the courage to explain this.
Also, the pushback against Indiana has begun: The well-known could-computing company Salesforce will terminate its activities in Indiana (cached). Actor George Takei has called for a general boycott of the state, as well (cached). Obviously, neither of these is going to help much. The militant Christianists who enacted this law are not going to be influenced by vile “Left Coast” CEOs or gay actors. If anything, this sort of pushback is likely only to further convince them they’re right, because — in their minds — these are merely agents of the very same Forces of Darkness who’ve been persecuting them relentlessly for centuries. They can’t break free from their “Christian martyr complex” because it’s embedded within the psychopathology of their religion. The bottom line is, they think their Jesus outlawed homosexuality (which he absolutely did not do; homosexuality is not mentioned even once in any of the gospels); they think treating gays as sub-human is a way for them to worship their deity; and they’re not going to stop hating teh gayz — not for any reason.
Hat tip: Rational Wiki.
Photo credit: Image © Austin Cline; Original Poster: Northwestern University.
, christian right
, disciples of christ
, gay marriage
, gen con
, indiana sb 101
, religious right
, sb 101
No Comments »
Christians in the US continue to believe themselves a persecuted minority, in spite of the fact that they’re anything but. The relentless expansion of gay marriage has done more than almost anything else to unsettle them and exacerbate the paranoia which is inherent in the psychopathology of their religion. They seem not to comprehend, though, that gays being allowed to marry doesn’t actually harm them in any way. After all, no one is forcing them to marry same-sex partners against their will.
Enter a church in Knoxville, TN, which — according to WBIR-TV in that city — found a bizarre way to express its displeasure at the notion of “equal rights” (WebCite cached article):
A marquee message posted outside an East Knoxville church has sparked controversy. The church’s pastor says people have misunderstood the communication.
The Knoxville Baptist Tabernacle sign read, “Remember Satan was the first to demand equal rights.”
Here’s what the sign looked like:
A Knoxville church’s message has drawn criticism from some in the community. Submitted to WBIR-TV.
I have no idea what’s the basis of the claim made here. There’s no mention of Satan demanding “equal rights” in the Bible. In spite of there being no scriptural grounds for this statement, and its dismissal of the notion of “equal rights,” the church’s pastor said no offense was intended:
Pastor Tony Greene says he meant no offense. He said the church was not targeting a certain group.
He thinks people misunderstood his message.
“Be careful when you demand your equal rights that you don’t hurt others around you. You’ve got to consider everyone around you,” he said.
Greene said it was also a test to see if people were reading the sign. He said he’s received a lot of feedback.
The church changed the sign Monday to read, “Didn’t mean to offend. We all need Christ.”
Greene errs when he suggests that granting “equal rights” to some, can harm others. It doesn’t work that way. “Equal rights” always enrich everyone, because — by definition — they’re given to everyone. Period.
Oh, and the idea that Greene had merely been “testing” people to see if they’d read his sign? That really doesn’t excuse the idiocy of what he put on it. He could have opted for a much less incendiary, not to mention contra-factual, message to use as a “test,” if that’s really what he’d intended to do.
The cold fact is that all Americans have “equal rights” under the Constitution and its amendments (particularly the 14th). Satan had nothing to do with that, and objecting to “equal rights” on religious grounds won’t change it. It’s long past time for Christianists like Greene and his childish flock to stop throwing infantile shit-fits over things they personally dislike but which do not, in fact, harm them in the slightest. They ought to act like grown-ups, fercryingoutloud.
Hat tip: Raw Story.
Photo credit: About.Com.
, church sign
, equal rights
, knoxville baptist tabernacle
, Knoxville TN
, pastor tony greene
, tony greene
No Comments »
I guess the aptly-named megapastor Creflo Dollar is too good to fly commercial. At least, that’s a conclusion one might reach, on hearing that he expects his sheep to donate $60 million to him so he can buy himself an airplane. (To replace one he’s already had for over 15 years.) CNN reports on his ridiculously greedy demand (WebCite cached article):
Creflo Dollar is hoping a few folks will see fit to bless him.
The minister, known for being a prosperity preacher at his Atlanta-area World Changers Church International, is seeking “200,000 people committed to sow $300 or more (to) help achieve our goal to purchase the G650 airplane.”
The figures are presented in a nearly six-minute video on the Creflo Dollar Ministries website [cached] and total more than $60 million needed to buy the Gulfstream G650, which goes for a reported $65 million. The project isn’t limited to member donations, as the site states that “we are asking members, partners and supporters of this ministry to assist us in acquiring a Gulfstream G650.”
The request goes on to detail that the luxury jet will transport Pastors Creflo and Taffi Dollar and member of the Dollars’ church around the globe to help them spread the gospel.
I guess it’s not possible to “spread the gospel” when traveling by airline. Who knows, maybe I just don’t understand such important, sacred considerations, given I’m a cynical, cold-hearted, godless agnostic heathen who hasn’t had the benefit of holy insights.
Note that the page on the ministry Web site that CNN linked to, above, is now returning an HTTP 404, or “page not found” error. Hmm. I wonder what might have happened to it?* Fortunately for me, the Internet never forgets, as they say. The Wayback Machine at Archive.Org happens to have preserved the page, which you can see here, and which I’ve doubly preserved at WebCite.
CNN points out that Dollar preaches the “prosperity gospel,” which claims that Jesus came to make his followers wealthy and didn’t want them to be poor. Yeah, I know, maybe my cynical, cold-hearted, godless agnostic heathen nature is getting in the way of understanding Jesus’ teachings — but the last time I looked, he taught the virtue of poverty:
“Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal; for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. … No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.” (Matthew 6:19-21, 24)
Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be complete, go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” But when the young man heard this statement, he went away grieving; for he was one who owned much property. And Jesus said to His disciples, “Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” When the disciples heard this, they were very astonished and said, “Then who can be saved?” (Matthew 19:21-25)
Looking at him, Jesus felt a love for him and said to him, “One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” But at these words he was saddened, and he went away grieving, for he was one who owned much property. And Jesus, looking around, said to His disciples, “How hard it will be for those who are wealthy to enter the kingdom of God!” The disciples were amazed at His words. But Jesus answered again and said to them, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” They were even more astonished and said to Him, “Then who can be saved?” (Mark 10:21-26)
And He sat down opposite the treasury, and began observing how the people were putting money into the treasury; and many rich people were putting in large sums. A poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, which amount to a cent. Calling His disciples to Him, He said to them, “Truly I say to you, this poor widow put in more than all the contributors to the treasury; for they all put in out of their surplus, but she, out of her poverty, put in all she owned, all she had to live on.” (Mark 12:41-44)
And turning His gaze toward His disciples, He began to say, “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.” (Luke 6:20)
“But woe to you who are rich, for you are receiving your comfort in full.” (Luke 6:24)
“Sell your possessions and give to charity; make yourselves money belts which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near nor moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” (Luke 12:33-34)
“No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.” (Luke 16:13)
When Jesus heard this, He said to him, “One thing you still lack; sell all that you possess and distribute it to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” But when he had heard these things, he became very sad, for he was extremely rich. And Jesus looked at him and said, “How hard it is for those who are wealthy to enter the kingdom of God! For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” They who heard it said, “Then who can be saved?” (Luke 18:22-26)
Since being impoverished can be a major inconvenience, it’s little wonder that Christians devised this “theology” in the first place, and that there are so many of them eager to flock to hear that Jesus wants them to be wealthy, not poor.
My own guess … knowing as I do a number of Christians who subscribe to this “theology” … I suspect Dollar will get his many-million-dollar airplane. The followers of “prosperity” preachers rarely fail to live up to the demands made of them.
Update: It’s not just me who noticed the Dollar Ministries plea for airplane money has been pulled from their Web site; here’s a story by WXIA-TV in Atlanta on the matter (cached).
Photo credit: PsiCop graphic, made at Despair.Com & based on Jan van Eyck via Wikimedia Commons.
, creflo a dollar
, creflo a dollar jr
, creflo dollar
, creflo dollar ministries
, gulfstream g650
, gulfstream g650 project
, prosperity gospel
, prosperity theology
No Comments »
Pope Francis has been making headlines continually since his election nearly two years ago. And I’ve blogged about a lot of them. Some of his remarks have been reasonable — remarkably so, given the institution he heads — but others border on, or are, irrational and weird. An example of the latter, as the (UK) Guardian reports, is a statement he made just a few days ago (WebCite cached article):
Pope Francis has chided couples who choose not to have children, saying the decision is a “selfish” act. The statement, made in his general audience in St Peter’s Square, will be seen as especially controversial in Italy, which has recorded a steady drop in its birth rate for decades.
“A society with a greedy generation, that doesn’t want to surround itself with children, that considers them above all worrisome, a weight, a risk, is a depressed society,” the pope said. “The choice to not have children is selfish. Life rejuvenates and acquires energy when it multiplies: It is enriched, not impoverished.”
As is usual for religious figures, the Pope seems to think his own subjective notions apply to everyone on the planet. He compounds this by making subjective judgements about people who don’t do what he thinks they should. The premise that everyone on the planet is obligated to live in the way he personally prescribes, is of course laughable and absurd. Couples do not, in fact, have to have children. They’re free to decide to do so, or not, whatever they wish. Yes, even Catholic couples. And contrary to what Francis said, there are many reasons couples might choose not to have children; they might, for example, not wish to pass on some genetic problem; they might not think they have the economic wherewithal to raise a family; and, of course, they simply may not wish to have any children. Those choices aren’t necessarily predicated on the childless couple being “selfish” or part of “a greedy generation.” So the Pope has no reason to assume so.
What’s also remarkable about this statement is that it appears to contradict something he’d said a few weeks ago, as the National Catholic Reporter explained at the time (cached):
The pontiff has also made what appears to be an unprecedented statement that Catholics may have a moral responsibility to limit the number of their children, while reaffirming Pope Paul VI’s ban on artificial means of birth control.…
… Francis made a statement that seems without precedent for a pope, suggesting that parents may have a responsibility to limit the number of their children, saying: “This does not signify that the Christian must make children in series.”
Telling the story of a woman he met in a parish in Rome several months ago who had given birth to seven children via Cesarean section and was pregnant with an eighth, Francis asked: “Does she want to leave the seven orphans?”
“This is to tempt God,” he said, adding later: “That is an irresponsibility.” Catholics, the pope said, should speak of “responsible parenthood.”
One wonders, then, exactly what it is that Pope Francis thinks about couples having children? Maybe he thinks each couple must have one or two kids each, but no more. I can’t really say, but that sort of thing seems to be what he was veering toward, taking both statements together.
I suppose this weird shuffle is a natural product of the fact that Roman Catholicism encourages couples to have children — due to its doctrinal presumption that sex is solely for procreation and its prohibition on contraception — in light of the fact that children are an economic and societal burden, so that having too many can create a lot of problems (both within families and societies at large). The result of this is that Catholic leaders like the Pope can’t help but swerve back and forth on the topic, because there’s no logical way to resolve the paradox (which, I note, they have constructed for themselves).
I won’t even touch the inherent ridiculousness of a celibate man doling out life-instructions to normal couples. It goes without saying that — by definition as well as by choice — they haven’t a fucking clue what they’re talking about … and that’s all one needs to say about it.
Hat tip: RationalWiki.
Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons.
Tags: catholic church
, childless couples
, holy father
, holy see
, pope francis
, roman catholic
, roman catholic church
, vatican city
No Comments »
In my experience, Christians are hypersensitive to any mention of the Crusades (along with other glorious parts of Christianity’s history such as the Inquisitions, witch-hunts, and more). They just don’t want to hear about them … even if they’re actually part of the history of their religion. They petulantly refuse to acknowledge these events as examples of their religion’s history, and get their knickers in knots when anyone dares confront them with them.
Naturally, then, what President Barack Obama said last Thursday at the National Prayer Breakfast has them in a towering rage (WebCite cached article). The Washington Post, among many other media outlets, reported on their anger and fury (cached):
President Obama has never been one to go easy on America.…
His latest challenge came Thursday at the National Prayer Breakfast. At a time of global anxiety over Islamist terrorism, Obama noted pointedly that his fellow Christians, who make up a vast majority of Americans, should perhaps not be the ones who cast the first stone.
“Humanity has been grappling with these questions throughout human history,” he told the group, speaking of the tension between the compassionate and murderous acts religion can inspire. “And lest we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.”
These remarks kicked up so much sanctimonious outrage among the “Christian Nation” that NASA scientists probably picked up the sound of it from their New Horizons probe out by Pluto.
Some Republicans were outraged. “The president’s comments this morning at the prayer breakfast are the most offensive I’ve ever heard a president make in my lifetime,” said former Virginia governor Jim Gilmore (R). “He has offended every believing Christian in the United States. This goes further to the point that Mr. Obama does not believe in America or the values we all share.”…
Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, called Obama’s comments about Christianity “an unfortunate attempt at a wrongheaded moral comparison.”
As someone who studied the Crusades in college — unlike all these outraged commentators — I think it’s time to clear up a lot of misconceptions about them:
- Christians these days think the Crusades were a legitimate military response to the military threat posed by Muslims. While it’s true that Muslims in the east did threaten Christians near them, and had been fighting the Eastern Roman Empire (or Byzantium) for centuries, one must remember the Crusades were carried out by western Europeans … mostly of French origin. In the 11th century when the Crusades were launched, no Muslim was a threat to the French. Not even close! The Muslim advance into western Europe which began around the turn of the 8th century had been halted at the Battle of Tours in 733/4. In the over three centuries which followed, the Muslim state in Spain had been surrounded and eroded by its Christian neighbors. The Emirate of Granada did not, in any way, threaten any of the mostly-French lords who embarked on the First Crusade.
- While it’s true that the Byzantine Empire was engaged in fighting against Muslims — which was the reason its Emperor Alexius I Comnenus wrote to Pope Urban II to request assistance in 1095 — the First Crusaders ultimately ended up not helping shore up Byzantine defenses. Quite the opposite: They left the region near Constantinople in the dust and plunged straight through Anatolia (at a frightful cost in terms of lives lost, since they had no idea what they were doing and weren’t prepared for such a venture) and into the Levant as quickly as they could. Once there, and once they’d made some conquests (e.g. retaking Antioch), they didn’t restore those lands to the Byzantines; instead, they kept them for themselves.
- The Holy Land itself had been in Muslim hands since the early 7th century, but there were still Christians living there, and western Christians had been able to go on pilgrimages there pretty much the entire time. The Muslim rulers had allowed monks to tend to pilgrims there (most of them needed some assistance after their long journey). That Muslim overlords held the region hadn’t really put a dent in Christians’ ability to live and worship there.
- The main danger posed by Muslims to Christendom, at the time the Crusades began, was not in the Holy Land, and didn’t involve the French. The real danger was that the Seljuk Turks would overwhelm Byzantium and other Christian states near it. Had the French — who, living as they did at the western end of the Mediterranean and weren’t threatened by Muslims — really wanted to help defend Christendom, the proper strategy would have been for them to place themselves at the disposal of Alexius and work with the Byzantines to rebuild their state and reacquire their lost territory. Then they would have helped Byzantium maintain more defensible borders.
- In fact, a little over a century after the First Crusade embarked from western Europe, a subsequent expedition — the Fourth Crusade — didn’t even bother going to the Holy Land at all. Instead, its armies went after their fellow Christians, the Byzantines. They drove out two Emperors in succession, sacked Constantinople, made one of their own Emperor, and left the Eastern Roman Empire a shell of its former self. Byzantium later recovered somewhat, but it was never the same again, and entered into a long decline.
- The idea that the Crusaders were trying to defend Christianity is belied by the way in which they treated the eastern Christians they came across. In addition to fighting with the Byzantines more than they cooperated, they also seized Edessa, an Armenian Christian state. They drove out the local Orthodox hierarchy, including the Patriarch of Jerusalem, installing a replacement of their own who was loyal to the Pope. Overall, their relations with eastern Christians were never very good, and the Crusaders never actually acted like their guardians.
In sum, the idea that the Crusades were a rational and proper military response to a genuine military threat, is — quite simply — fucking laughably ridiculous. French armies had no legitimate business making a beeline through many hundreds of miles of territory and trying to home in on the Holy Land. Their expedition was hideously expensive — in terms of money, resources expended, and lives lost — and punctuated by atrocities like the massacre that took place when they captured Jerusalem in 1099. None of that contributed in the slightest to the defense of Christendom against Muslim expansion. Again, had this been the Crusaders’ true goal, they’d have assisted the Byzantines in rebuilding and refortifying their Empire.
It was also often said — particularly back in the ’80s when I was studying the subject in college — that the Crusades weren’t motivated by religion, but rather by a desire for new territory. But this makes little sense. Most of the princes who made up the First Crusade had been engaged in various military expeditions for years, before deciding to embark on their expedition to the Holy Land. Bohemond of Taranto, for example, had invaded the Balkans and fought the Byzantines there some 15 years prior, and he’d engaged in a few other minor wars and skirmishes. Had he stayed home, he’d have continued those same expeditions, and could well have won new lands that way. The same was true of Raymond of St Gilles, who had fought Muslims in Spain already, and could certainly have continued doing so, had he wished to, instead of crossing the Mediterranean. There’s quite simply no way these princes’ desire to reach and retake the Holy Land in particular makes any sense, unless they’d been at least partly motivated by religion.
Getting back to the main point: Obama’s mention of the Crusades as well as other things like slavery and Jim Crow, was not an “attack” on Christians or Christianity. They are an actual part of Christian history. To deny this is to be delusional. They happened … period. Maybe modern Christians would prefer not to hear about them, but too fucking bad. Complaining that the Crusades were “1,000 years ago” (they weren’t, if you recall they were a sequence of expeditions that began in the 1090s but ended with the fall of Acre in 1291) also isn’t going to help. “It’s history,” Obama’s self-righteous critics say. “They’re in the past. They’re over. So what?” It may be true that the Crusades and Inquisitions have been over for centuries, but they were only two of Obama’s examples of the use of religion to support immorality. The others (slavery and Jim Crow) are both much more recent. Witch-hunting, which Obama didn’t mention, happens to be a present-day pastime of African Christians.
Obama also didn’t “blame” modern Christians for the Crusades; that objection is just more delusional paranoia. He also didn’t say Christians are as bad as ISIS; that too is a childish fabrication which multiple Rightists have spewed.
The real lesson Obama had delivered — and which the “Christian Nation” refuses to hear, no matter how true it may be — is that any religion can be used to justify evil. Yes, even Christianity! It happened in the past — both in the distant past, and in more recent times — and it could, conceivably, happen again. That it offends Christians to be told this, only shows how childish they really are. It’s time for them to pull on their big-boy pants and act their ages instead of getting all bent out of shape because they like thinking that the president they despise, Barack HUSSEIN Obama, is “attacking” them for something.
P.S. I still don’t get how or why Christians find it necessary to host big splashy events like “national prayer breakfasts.” After all, the founder of their own religion explicitly and unambiguously ordered them never to express their piety publicly. So why do they insist on doing it? Why won’t they obey their own Jesus?
Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons.
Tags: barack obama
, jim crow
, national prayer breakfast
, president barack obama
, public piety
, religious extremism
, religious extremist
, religious extremists
No Comments »
As I blogged a few days ago, Louisiana’s Christianist governor Bobby Jindal has essentially kicked off his campaign for the nation’s Preacher-in-Chief. As part of this campaign, he’s angling for the Neocrusader vote, which is a sizable chunk of the Republican party, and — one assumes — he hopes he can use to win the GOP nomination next year. At least, this is the only explanation for the depths of fact-deprived insanity to which he’s recently stooped.
Caught in a lie about the so-called “no-go zones” in Europe, in which Islamic shari’a law prevails rather than the law of the country, as CNN reports, he not only doubled down on this lie, he added to it by piling on another (WebCite cached article):
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal on Wednesday stood by his controversial comments about “no go zones” in European cities, insisting that some Muslim immigrants are trying to “colonize” European cities and “overtake the culture.”
And the United States could be next, warned Jindal, a Republican who is considering a 2016 presidential run.
“They may be second, third, fourth generation, they don’t consider themselves part of that country. They’re actually going in there to colonize, to overtake the culture,” Jindal said. “If people don’t want to come here to integrate and assimilate, what they’re really trying to do is … overturn our culture.”
Earlier, Jindal had talked about “no-go zones,” which do not, in fact, exist. That whole notion has been thoroughly debunked. Even the man responsible for this myth, Daniel Pipes, has acknowledged his error and said they don’t exist. The Bobster elaborated on his “invasion” lie, Buzzfeed reports, on a radio show run by his fellow Christianists at Focus on the Family (cached):
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a potential Republican candidate for president, warned in an interview Monday on the Family Research Council’s Washington Watch radio program of the possibility of so-called Muslim “no go zones” coming to America, focusing later on what he called a possible sharia “colonization” and “invasion” of America.
“If we’re not careful the same no-go zones you’re seeing now in Europe will come to America,” said Jindal singling out those in “academic” and “media elite” who he said “don’t want to proclaim American exceptionalism.”
I’m not going to get into the notion that Muslims have launched an “invasion” of the United States in order to overturn its government and force shari’a law on the country. It’s fucking obvious to anyone with half a brain and one working eyeball that it’s not happening. A mature man with integrity, caught in lies, will admit them and apologize — as Pipes and Fox News have already, where this issue is concerned — and move on already. But not the Bobster. He’s far too childish to make any such admission, and too caught up in his own crazy, disingenuous rhetoric to find something else to talk about so he can finally stop embarrassing himself.
Photo credit: Mark Peterson/Redux, via the Daily Beast.
Tags: 2016 republican primary
, bobby jindal
, christian right
, gov bobby jindal
, muslim invasion
, no-go zones
, religious right
, shari'a law
8 Comments »