Now that Donald “it’s my own orange hair!” Trump has been elected president, he’s begun assigning roles to the various men (many of specious character and/or ability) who supported his campaign. The transition process has turned out to be a clusterfuck, which should surprise exactly no one (WebCite cached article).
In August, the Dallas Morning News reported that Flynn had delivered a speech to a Dallas gathering of the anti-Muslim group ACT for America, in which he had called Islam “a political ideology” that hides behind “being a religion,” and “a cancer.”…
“Islam is a political ideology.… It definitely hides behind this notion of it being a religion. And I have a very, very tough time because I don’t see a lot of people screaming ‘Jesus Christ’ with hatchets or machetes or rifles shooting up clubs or hatcheting, literally axing families on a train, or like they just killed a couple of police officers with a machete.”
Flynn’s complaint that Islam isn’t a religion, but rather a political ideology, is an oldone amongReligious Rightists. By saying Islam isn’t a religion, the R.R. rationalizes outlawing that religion and robbing Muslims of their religious freedom. Their assumption that Islam could be abolished in the US if it’s found to be a political ideology and not a religion, is — of course — foolish, since in addition to religious freedom, we also have political freedoms. The R.R. could no more ban Islam-as-a-political-ideology than it could the ideology of Leftism (which it would very much like to do, but can’t).
As I’ve blogged many times before, these Neocrusaders view Islam as the chief rival of their own religion (which, for nearly all of them, is Christianity). Their “war” against it is basically just a form of religious one-upmanship … i.e. a way of pushing the narrative that their god is bigger than the Muslims’ god. By agitating against Muslims, they hope to “prove” the virtues of their own religion and make Muslims cave in to them.
As such, it’s all very childish, but this is the ideology that elected Donald “it’s my own orange hair!” Trump. So what can one expect?
Between requests for prayers for the sick and a notice for an upcoming chastity luncheon, a newsletter from a Catholic church in Old Town that doubles as an election-day polling site included a flier that told parishioners they’ll go to hell if they vote for Democrats.
Two Sundays later, the message had changed: Satan was working through former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
The Oct. 16 bulletin from the Immaculate Conception Catholic Church was stuffed with a flyer written in both English and Spanish that cited five legislative policies — support for abortion, same-sex marriage, euthanasia, human cloning, and embryonic stem cell research — that will doom a politician and their supporters to eternal damnation.
“It is a mortal sin to vote Democrat … immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell,” the flyer said. It cited the five public policy issues from the “Voters Guide for Serious Catholics” and said that Democrats violate each of them, while Republicans cross none.
The diocese admits this flyer was given out in violation of Catholic policy and professed that they hadn’t done it:
The Roman Catholic Diocese of San Diego on Wednesday said the messages in the flier and bulletin do not reflect Catholic teaching or diocese policies, are inappropriate, and that voters should use their conscience to determine which candidates to support.
“It’s not a mortal sin to vote for Democrats, number one. And number two, the church doesn’t take positions on this, and we’re not going to,” diocese spokesman Kevin Eckery said.…
The diocese said the flier was not authorized by the parish, but it was somehow inserted into the Oct. 16 bulletin.
The problem with this “it wasn’t authorized” defense is that it happened twice, not just once; you’d think the parish priest(s) and staff would have been on alert for someone stuffing crap into their bulletins, after it had happened the first time. That it occurred a second time can only mean they are — at best — unconcerned about it, and — at worst — they approve of it.
As for Hillary being a Satanist by virtue of her links to Alinsky, I addressed that just this summer, when former GOP candidate Ben Carson trotted out that trope. I said then, and will repeat here, that Alinsky was no Satanist at all, and that Clinton was not his sycophant. Yes, it’s true that Religious Rightists despise Alinsky and many of them truly do believe him to have been a Satanist … but their belief, no matter how sincere it might be, cannot magically make that true. Because it’s not. And Clinton herself differed with Alinsky, to the point of refusing a job offer he made.
Although this is a blatant violation of the IRS code, I’m sure that feared agency will do nothing about this. At all. For decades they’ve consistently bent over for the Religious Right, and I have no reason to think they’re going to change, any time soon.
Acting U.S. Attorney Tom Beall says Curtis Allen, 49, Gavin Wright, 51, and Patrick Stein were all charged with domestic terrorism.
Beall said the three were planning to bomb an apartment complex and mosque in Garden City occupied by a Muslim community of about 120 Somali refugees.
Beall said the men planned to carry out the attack on Nov. 9, the day after Election Day.…
Beall said the men wrote a manifesto, which they wanted published after the bombing.
According to an affidavit, the were a part of a group called the Kansas Security Force and the Crusaders.
“These are militia groups whose members support and espouse sovereign citizen, anti-government, anti-Muslim, and anti-immigrant extremist beliefs,” read the affidavit.
Beall said the men’s arrest is a part of an eight month long investigation.
For the last year, the Right — led by GOP presidential nominee Donald “it’s my own orange hair!” Trump — has blustered and fumed over Muslim refugees living among us, and how horrifically dangerous they are. Supposedly. It’s only natural, after all, because isn’t it obvious that all Muslims everywhere are terrorists, bent on killing “infidels” wherever they may be? Wouldn’t it make sense, therefore — according to Neocrusaders’ thinking — that it’s better to kill them before they kill us?
Fortunately for the country, but unfortunately for the Neocrusaders, those Somali refugees in Kansas aren’t very likely to become terrorists … but sanctimonious Christianists don’t let little things like “facts” get in the way of their towering fury.
A Richmond man identifying as Sikh was attacked Sept. 25 in what he describes as a violent hate crime, the Sikh Coalition said Friday.
Maan Singh Khalsa, 41, was driving home from work at 9 p.m. when he was stopped at a red light near Hilltop Mall Drive in Richmond, half a mile from his home, according to the Sikh Coalition.
The article describes the attack, bolstered by a recorded 911 call. Accordingly, police have taken this report seriously, making two arrests and seeking three other men.
For some reason, many Americans confuse Sikhs with Muslims. But their religions are different — and very much so. About the only thing both religions have in common is that they’re monotheistic. Otherwise, they’re completely different. Islam is an Abrahamic faith that originated in what is now Saudi Arabia; Sikhism is a Dharmic faith founded in India. The former descends from the religion practiced by ancient Hebrews of the Levant; the latter descends from the Vedic faith practiced by Indo-Aryans. Americans, especially of the Neocrusading variety, are ignorant; when they see a Sikh man wearing a turban, they often think, “Muslim!” when in fact that assumption is usually false.
The solution is for Neocrusaders to grow the fuck up, for the first time in their lives, and deal with their irrational fears, rather than lashing out like toddlers throwing a tantrum. There are ways to deal with the dangers that exist, without stomping around as part of a latter-day “People’s Crusade.” I should point out — as someone who studied the Middle Ages — that the original People’s Crusade didn’t end well for those who led and participated in it. American Neocrusaders would do well to take note of the rashness and irrationality of their medieval predecessors.
Christians really despise what they call “moral relativism” — i.e. the notion that morality is decided by humans and not dictated from on high by the Almighty. The result, Christians claim, is a moral and ethical “free for all” with individuals deciding their own morals and ethics. They say this allows people to grant themselves license to misbehave, denying their deity’s role as the sole arbiter of morals (WebCite cached article). But even so, that doesn’t prevent these same Christians from engaging in moral relativism, themselves!
Yet, many others are standing firm with him and refuse to acknowledge there’s anything wrong with Donnie bragging about how he could assault any woman he wants and get away with it because he’s a star. Most of these are devout Religious Rightists who profess high morals. Among those who’ve doubled down in their defense of little Donnie is Sean Hannity of Fox News (cached):
Here, Seanie displays his ability to rationalize Donnie’s hypersexed frat-boy bravado using a variant of fallacious appeal to tradition: The legendary King Solomon, you see, had a whopping 300 concubines (in addition to 700 wives who were princesses). So gee, Sean, because Solomon had such a vast harem, I guess it’s OK for your pal Donnie to go and grab as many pussies as he wants and never be prosecuted for sexual assault? Is that what you want us to think? After you’ve blustered and fumed for over a decade over how morally bankrupt the American Left has been? Really!?
Rudy Giuliani defended Donald Trump’s crude remarks about women Sunday, telling CNN’s Jake Tapper on “State of the Union” that “men at times talk like that.”
But the former New York City mayor also admitted that what Trump was describing in a 2005 video is sexual assault.…
Tapper pressed Giuliani on Trump’s claim — in the video from a 2005 “Access Hollywood” interview published Friday by The Washington Post — that because he is a star, he could walk up to women and “grab them by the pussy,” asking who Trump did that to.
“First of all, I don’t know that he did it to anyone. This is talk, and gosh almighty, he who hasn’t sinned, throw the first stone here,” Giuliani said.
Tapper said: “I have never said that; I have never done that. I am happy to throw a stone. I have been in locker rooms. I have been a member of a fraternity. I have never heard any man, ever, brag about being able to maul women because they get away with it — never.”
Giuliani responded: “We’ve taken it to an extra degree of what he said. But the fact is that men at times talk like that. Not all men, but men do. He was wrong for doing it.”…
“Gosh almighty, there were an awful lot of things, particularly Hillary Clinton attacking the women that Bill Clinton sexually assaulted, sexually abused — and she was the leader of the attack against them — so maybe he felt that at least put in context the kind of anger there would be at him,” Giuliani said.
So, because everyone’s a sinner, according to the Rudester, no one is allowed to hold Donnie accountable for his words. Also, because Hillary went after her husband’s accusers in the 1990s, that also makes Donnie’s words just fine.
Call me crazy, but I’m with Tapper: I’ve listened to a lot of men brag about a lot of things, but never once have I heard of them say he could freely commit sexual assault (not because they’re famous, or for any reason). I have never heard any such words come from the lips of any man. Not once. Ever! So when Giuliani claims that “men talk that way” … well, no, Yeronner, as a matter of fact, they don’t.
Yes, the Rudester did tell Tapper that Donnie’s bragging was wrong, and said he wasn’t trying to excuse it; however, by using these rationales to dismiss Donnie’s words, that’s precisely what he was doing! If the Rudester had truly meant to say that Donnie’s bragging was wrong, he’d have said it was wrong — and then he’d have stopped talking. But he didn’t do that. Instead, he carried on, as though Donnie’s words weren’t inexcusable.
Look, let’s not kid ourselves here about the Right. Sure, they talk a good game about morality and how important it is and how everyone must live up to the highest moral standards, because the Almighty demands it of us … but whenever another Rightist they love is caught saying or doing something that’s undeniably immoral, they just reel off excuse after excuse, including the old reliable “we’re all sinners, no one should cast stones” thing (i.e. the Pericope Adulterae in the gospel according to John) and they whine that the Left is just as bad (which is the old “two wrongs make a right” fallacy). Sorry to say, that’s not going to fly, either.
While all hurricanes are dangerous, something about this storm is particularly unique. As scientists have pointed out, it seems to be gathering strength where it should not, as though the storm was increasing in power from an outside force and in a way not seen before…
Florida is a nice place, but it unfortunately has become a lot like California, representing both the best and the worst that America has to offer. This is especially true in the area of homosexuality. While there are many conservative and religious Floridians, there are a tremendous amount of sodomites and immoral activity that takes place there. Given the serious moral decay of America that we see taking place before our eyes and the increasing disrespect for even the most basic of Christian morality, looking at this storm I began to wonder if perhaps, in some way, it was connected to this crisis.
The author of the article claims Hurricane Matthew is a storm of unprecedented power and is so unique that it can only be supernatural in origin. He also considers it significant that this hurricane is named Matthew, as in the saint who wrote one of the gospels, who happens to be depicted sometimes as an angel, and angels are the agents of God’s will, sometimes sent by the Almighty to chastise and punish. Our word “hurricane” comes from the Taíno people, who thought such storms were caused by powerful evil spirits. What’s more, this storm is hitting Florida today, October 7, on the Catholic Feast of Our Lady of the Rosary, and that commemorates a naval engagement, the Battle of Lepanto (1571), in which some Italian and Spanish lords defeated the Ottoman Empire’s navy, supposedly because they prayed the Rosary. And the Rosary is the most powerful prayer the Church has ever known, having been given to St Dominic Guzman, founder of the Dominican Order and, perhaps more importantly to this crank, a hammer of heretics (especially of the Albigensian/Cathar persuasion). And the Ottomans, who were defeated at Lepanto, were known to be raging pedophilic homosexual rapists. Supposedly.
The author of this ridiculous screed sums up his chain of laughable reasoning thus:
A hurricane- the storms from an evil being- named after the New Testament Evangelist whose symbol is an angel- a messenger of God and and executor of His will among and upon men- is about to make landfall on the exact area where two massive sodomite parades are taking place and almost to the day for the largest one, and the exact day the hurricane is scheduled to hit is the Feast Day of the Holiest Prayer in the Catholic Church used to fight the most wicked of sins and heresies given by the Mother of God herself.
Coincidence? You be the judge.
Yep, it all sounds really Glenn Beckian to me, too. The author finishes by ordering Americans to “stop sinning” — as though he has the authority to give such a command. (To be clear, he doesn’t.)
At any rate, any deity who uses threats of catastrophe in order to force people to knuckle under to his/her/its dour dictates, can’t really be a deity worthy of worship. And any religion that thinks its deity uses such tactics, is not one that any moral or ethical person should belong to. That militant Christianists think this way, only serves to demonstrate how truly vile their beliefs are.
As I’ve said many times, one feature of fundamentalist religiosity — regardless of which overall religious tradition it’s in — is immaturity. They have a very powerful sense of how things should be, but are blissfully unaware of the fact that none of that is even remotely realistic. So they’re repeatedly thwarted by what they perceive as a hostile world around them … and they can’t handle it. It makes them become angry and resentful.
Now, a year later, [Betty and Dick Odgaard] and other conservative evangelicals interviewed in central Iowa say they feel as if they have been abandoned. Many say that they have no genuine champion in the presidential race and that the country has turned its back on them. Americans are leaving church, same-sex marriage is the law of the land, and the country has moved on to debating transgender rights. While other Americans are anxious about the economy, jobs and terrorism, conservative Christians say they fear for the nation’s very soul. Some worry that the nation has strayed so far that God’s punishment is imminent.…
The change in America seemed to happen so quickly that it felt like whiplash, the Odgaards said. One day, they felt comfortably situated in the American majority, as Christians with shared beliefs in God, family and the Bible. They had never even imagined that two people of the same sex could marry.
Overnight, it seemed, they discovered that even in small-town Iowa they were outnumbered, isolated and unpopular. Everyone they knew seemed to have a gay relative or friend. Mr. Odgaard’s daughter from his first marriage disavowed her father’s actions on Facebook, and his gay second cousin will not speak to him. Even their own Mennonite congregation put out a statement saying that while the denomination opposes gay marriage, “not every congregation” or Mennonite does. Mrs. Odgaard, 64, the daughter of a Mennonite minister, was devastated.
“It all flipped, so fast,” said Mr. Odgaard, a patrician 70-year-old who favors khakis and boat shoes. “Suddenly, we were in the minority. That was kind of a scary feeling. It makes you wonder where the Christians went.”
The Times continues explaining how alienated American fundagelicals like the Odgaards feel. The article focuses on recent societal changes, such as the advent of gay marriage, but things like that don’t entirely explain the reality of this alienation. At the Friendly Atheist I posted the following comment, based on my own experience as a fundie Christian:
As a former fundamentalist/evangelical Christian, I must point out something: Their sense of alienation has nothing to do with gay marriage. Not. One. F-ing. Thing. That’s just a convenient scapegoat.
No, the reason fundagelicals feel alienated, is because they’re fundagelicals. No matter what may (or may not) be going on around them, their beliefs define them as a downtrodden minority in what they perceive to be an overwhelmingly “worldly” society. And for them, “worldly” means “Satanic” (because they believe their deity has handed the Devil authority over “the world,” until the Apocalypse).
Fundagelicals believe themselves to be outnumbered and outgunned, constantly oppressed by profane “worldly” forces trying to wrench them away from their deity and deprive them of their sanctity.
For them, this perspective is definitional. As they see it, it’s laid out for them in scripture; they believe it, and that’s that. Everything that ever happens to them simply fits in with this view. Bad things happen to them because “the world” is out to destroy them because of their vaunted holiness. (Anything good that happens to them, of course, is because of said vaunted holiness.) Essentially it’s a rationale for their persecution complex (which, in turn, is the product of Christianity’s underlying psychopathology, going back nearly to its origins).
Sure, things like gay marriage play into, and perhaps even increase, fundagelicals’ prevailing sense of alienation. But those external factors did not create that sense of alienation, and if they were to vanish, would not make it go away. That alienation is ever-present in fundagelical Christianity and is part and parcel of it.
To be clear, this sense of alienation is something I experienced when I was a fundie, and that was during the early 80s. That was a time when gay rights weren’t being discussed very much, gay marriage wasn’t on the horizon, and for nearly everyone the word “transgender” didn’t even exist. Yet, that alienation was very real for those in my little faith community.
So … if fundagelicals feel alienated, too bad so sad for them. All they need to do is let go of the alienation, and it will be gone — because they’re manufacturing it, themselves, out of whole cloth. It’s not based on fact, but on their persecutorial metaphysics.
In sum, I don’t pity these folk one bit. They’ve created their own despair, having crafted it from their own delusions. Whatever anxiety they feel, is purely theirs. No one’s forcing it on them.