Posts Tagged “republican”
No sooner do I get done blogging about how Christians routinely and pathologically lie about the extent to which their religion has been persecuted — both historically and in the present day — I hear about a new outrage among them that’s got their knickers in a knot over precisely the same thing. It seems Google has decided to celebrate Easter 2013 with one of its “Google doodles” … featuring Cesar Chavez, whose birthday happens to be March 31 (this year, the same day as Easter). The Canadian Press via CTV News reports on their sanctimonious rage over this horrific, intolerable insult (WebCite cached article):
Google’s decision to honour the birthday of U.S. labour organizer Cesar Chavez angered some American Christians on Sunday, who fumed that it was disrespectful to celebrate Chavez with a so-called Google Doodle on Easter Sunday.
The face of Chavez, a Mexican immigrant who organized Latino farm workers in the 1960s, was situated in the middle “o” of the Google logo on Sunday as the search engine giant opted against recognizing a secular holiday to commemorate what would have been the civil rights activist’s 86th birthday.
Conservative websites assailed Google’s decision.
In case you haven’t see it yet, here’s a screen shot of the Google doodle in question:
Google Web site, showing Google doodle honoring the 86th birthday of the late activist Cesar Chavez (3/31/2013)
Already, conservatives have identified what they believe as the source of this outrageous attack on their religion; why, it could only
be the hated President Barack Obama:
The Daily Caller expressed confusion about why Google “chose specifically to honour Chavez’s birthday, instead of Easter Sunday.”
The conservative news organization also suggested Obama might have influenced Google’s thinking. Google CEO Eric Schmidt was an “informal adviser” in both of Obama’s presidential campaigns, the Daily Caller reported, was a member of his transition team in 2009 and is apparently rumoured for a cabinet position during the president’s second term.
I’d like to break a little news to these angry conservatives: Google is a company that can do whatever it fucking wants with its Web site. If that means they honor Cesar Chavez’s birthday on Easter Sunday, then that’s what it means. And you know what? There’s not a fucking thing you sniveling crybabies can do to prevent it! Time to stand by your own stated pro-business rhetoric and let a corporation do what it wants to do. Anything else is clearly hypocritical … and if I may point it out, your own Jesus explicitly and unambiguously ordered you never, ever to be hypocritical … not at any time, and not for any reason.
Amusingly, the article notes that conservatives’ anger is so consuming that some of them conflated two different Chavezes (Cesar, and Hugo):
Others on social media praised Google for honouring Chavez and mocked those who confused him with Hugo Chavez, the recently deceased Venezuelan president.
The Twitter account for The Twitchy, conservative pundit Michelle Malkin’s right-wing news outlet, initially claimed Google was honouring the late revolutionary.
That they’d confuse two different men, both of whom they despise passionately, is just hilarious! I can hardly keep from laughing at their stupidity and ignorance.
At any rate, none of this is unexpected. Religious Rightists simply can’t tolerate anything that they view as “dissing” their religion. They view any slight to their faith as a very real “attack” on their persons, little different from being punched in the face or held up at gunpoint. That companies like Google are free to decorate their Web sites however they wish, is irrelevant in the face of this perceived insult. They quite simply refuse to tolerate any apparent disrespect for their religion.
Photo credit: Ernesto JT, via Flickr.
Tags: cesar chavez
, cesar chavez birthday
, christian right
, daily caller
, easter sunday
, google doodle
, michelle malkin
, religious right
, search engine
, the twitchy
4 Comments »
At this point one would have thought the Republicans should have learned the lesson of the 2012 election, which is that letting the idiots within its ranks mouth off like the clowns they are, is a bad idea. And voters seem to have agreed they were idiots: Richard Mourdock, Joe Walsh, and Todd Akin — at one time all favored to win their races — ended up losing, because they opened their mouths and shoved their religionistic feet in them. Remarkable losses such as these ought to have sent a message to the country’s Religious Right politicians.
But it seems some of them either never got the message, or they got it, but have decided spewing idiocy won’t hurt them. The New York Times Caucus blog reports on one who’s gone and done just that (WebCite cached version):
The lawmaker, Representative Phil Gingrey, an obstetrician and gynecologist, told the Cobb County Chamber of Commerce that neither Mr. Akin, who lost his Senate bid to Senator Claire McCaskill, nor Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock, who lost to Joe Donnelly, a Democrat, had been treated fairly in the wake of their rape comments, according to The Marietta Daily News.
“I’ve delivered lots of babies, and I know about these things,” Mr. Gingrey said, according to the paper. “It is true. We tell infertile couples all the time that are having trouble conceiving because of the woman not ovulating, ‘Just relax. Drink a glass of wine. And don’t be so tense and uptight because all that adrenaline can cause you not to ovulate.’ So he was partially right, wasn’t he?” …
He also justified Mr. Akin’s distinction between “legitimate rape” — which Mr. Akin had said women’s reproductive systems can defend against — and other unspecified sexual acts that can lead to pregnancy.
Mr. Akin, he said, “was asked by a local news source about rape and he said, ‘Look, in a legitimate rape situation’ — and what he meant by legitimate rape was just look, someone can say I was raped: a scared-to-death 15-year-old that becomes impregnated by her boyfriend and then has to tell her parents, that’s pretty tough and might on some occasion say, ‘Hey, I was raped.’
“That’s what he meant when he said legitimate rape versus non-legitimate rape. I don’t find anything so horrible about that. But then he went on and said that in a situation of rape, of a legitimate rape, a woman’s body has a way of shutting down so the pregnancy would not occur. He’s partly right on that.”
So you see, even after a disaster of an election which left the Republicans still out of the White House, and with a smaller number of seats in both houses of Congress, they still cannot seem to get over their belief that calling out idiots for their idiocy is somehow “not fair” to the idiots; that not all rapes are really “rapes”; and that women who are raped are less likely to become pregnant than women who aren’t.
Oh, and the part about fueling women with wine in order to get them to “loosen up” for sex … what juvenile fucking bullshit! I think I got over that idea back when I was in high school. But what the hell do I know!?
If you unsure how the next two years in GOP politics are going to go, this seems to provide an indicator: They plan to double down on their stupidity and buffoonery, be laughed at and derided as the clowns and loons they are, and continue to intone the endless mantra that they aren’t being “treated fairly.” Apparently they think this is a winning formula, in spite of the 2012 elections whose results say something else.
Update: The folks at PolitiFact examined Gingrey’s (and by extension Akin’s) claim and found it had no scientific basis at all (cached). As the article explains, and as I hadn’t known until just recently, there’s a significant wing of the Religious Right which really, truly and seriously claims either that women cannot conceive when they’re raped, or that the likelihood of conception is greatly reduced. The reason they make this claim is so that they can justify banning all abortions and not even grant an exception for cases of rape. They are willing to lie to people in order to justify forcing the entire country to live according to their metaphysics, and they’ve been doing it for many years.
Photo credit: PsiCop original, based on proverb.
, atlanta GA
, christian right
, cobb county
, georgia 11th district
, house of representatives
, legitimate rape
, phil gingrey
, religious right
, todd akin
No Comments »
I’m guessing most of you have no idea who Martha Dean is, not even those of you who live in my home state of Connecticut, where she also lives. Ordinarily, I’d have provided a link to her bio on some reference site like Answers.Com — but she’s not even well-known enough for that. That said, she’s hardly a nobody. She was the Republican nominee for Connecticut state Attorney General in 2002 and again in 2010.
Ms Dean is a gun-rights advocate and Republican activist, and one who’s not exactly all together upstairs. For example, while running for A.G. in 2010 she advocated mandatory gun training for all school children in Connecticut (cached) (just the liability insurance alone would make this cost-prohibitive for nearly every school district … but that didn’t matter to her, despite the fact that she’s a lawyer and surely had to have realized it).
Well, this shifty character managed to step in it a few days ago, when — as the Litchfield County Times reports — she posted a link to a “Newtown Truther” conspiracy video on her Facebook wall (WebCite cached article):
Republican legislative leaders have asked former GOP attorney general candidate Martha Dean to take down a link on her Facebook page to a conspiracy video that calls the massacre of schoolchildren in Newtown a “hoax.”
Put together by One Truth 4 Life, the 24-minute video, combines the early confusing reports out of Newtown when police were looking for a second shooter and comments from others at the scene to ultimately conclude that “this was a total hoax. There are just a bunch of people walking around a movie set.”
“Oh my God. It is just vile. It is beyond me how someone would post this, particularly a standard-bearer for any political party. It is such a disgraceful video,” said House Minority Leader Lawrence Cafero. He said he couldn’t understand why anyone would call attention to this material.
Larry may profess not understand the reason, but I do: It’s because Martha long ago drank the NRA’s paranoiac Kool-Aid and believes this was all contrived by the Obama administration to take away her precious guns. (Really, Larry, you already know this, too, and don’t need me to tell you. It’d have been better for you just to admit your co-Republican is a lunatic nutcase that no one should listen to and who had no business being on your party’s ballot twice in 8 years. But you haven’t the courage to say it. More’s the pity.)
Ms Dean apparently wasn’t unaffected by the fallout:
When reached Thursday, Dean read from a new post she put on Facebook on the criticism.
“We all love kids and we all mourn the tragic loss of school staff and children at Newtown, but we must never fear asking questions — or posting questions asked by others,” it read. She said she didn’t plan to comment further.
Except, that turns out to have been a lie. Today she had plenty of comment on it … when, as the Hartford Courant reports, she appeared this afternoon on the WTIC-AM radio show of convicted felon and ex-governor John Rowland (cached):
In an extraordinary radio interview [cached] that aired Wednesday afternoon, former Republican Gov. John Rowland, now host of a drive-time talk show on WTIC, relentlessly grilled Martha Dean, the former Republican nominee for attorney general who had posted a Sandy Hook truther video on her Facebook page [cached].
The exchange, which took up most of the 5 o’clock hour, touched on an array of topics, from the Lusitania to Benghazi to Susan Smith. …
“People want to know why you posted the video on your Facebook for Facebook followers,” Rowland asked. “What was the purpose, what was the point? What were you trying to prove, what are the questions that you’d think that people need to bring up in Connecticut..that’s what people want to know.” …
Dean said she uses her Facebook page as a forum for ideas, some of which she agrees with and some of which she doesn’t.
But Dean also say repeatedly that the video “raises questions” about the narrative that unfolded on Dec. 14. Among the questions she cited: How did shooter Adam Lanza get into the school? (He shot his way in [cached].)
The whole “there are questions, therefore my insane theory must be true” rationale is absurd on its face. Of course there are questions about what happened during the Newtown massacre. Dozens of them. I’ve asked some of those questions, myself. I will state very clearly, I find the Connecticut State Police — who’ve controlled the investigation — have been slippery and evasive where it’s concerned, to the point of even being dishonest about it (e.g. saying they discovered evidence of a motive for the massacre, yet continuing to say they have no idea what the motive could have been). However, that’s no reason to presume some insane conspiratorial hypothesis, nor is it good reason to post a video insulting to the victims of the Newtown massacre. The “people have questions” thing has been used to justify any number of crazy or hateful notions. One example is Holocaust denial; some Holocaust deniers predicate their objections on the question of just how many Jews were killed by the Nazis, as though if the number were “only,” say, 1 million instead of, say, 7 million, it means there couldn’t have been any genocide. That, of course, is laughable and asinine. What Martha is doing here isn’t so very different.
Based on the Courant‘s account of Rowland’s takedown of Ms Dean, I almost wish I were one of Rowland’s listeners. But it will take a lot more than just this to get me to listen to that felonious windbag.
At any rate, Martha’s fans within Connecticut’s extreme Right wing (which does exist in spite of this being a very “blue” state) and among NRA activists will, no doubt, laud her for her “courage” and praise her for having “asked questions” they think no one else has dared ask (even though lots of people, including myself, have done so). In other words, she’s already impressed everyone she’d hoped to impress with her little stunt. Nothing she says afterward, and nothing anyone else says about her, can change it. That John Rowland, Larry Cafero, or anyone else — even if they’re Republicans — disapproves of her maneuver, doesn’t matter one iota to her or to her supporters. She’s hooked them, and the barb has sunk in. And she’ll laugh all the way to the bank, especially if she decides to run for statewide office again in 2014.
P.S. I have no idea what Susan Smith has to do with this. I can only imagine what Martha thinks her link is to the Newtown massacre. I don’t even want to know … !
Photo credit: Motifake.
, john rowland
, larry cafero
, lawrence cafero
, martha dean
, newtown hoax
, newtown massacre
, newtown truth
, newtown truther
, newtown truthers
, one truth 4 life
, sandy hook elementary school
, sandy hook elementary school shooting
, sandy hook hoax
, sandy hook truth
, sandy hook truther
, sandy hook truthers
13 Comments »
Conspiracy theories are common in the US. Lots of Americans really love them. The more ideologically-inclined they are, the more likely they are to cling to them. It stands to reason that the Far Right has built up something of an industry of various and sundry Barack Obama-related conspiracy theories. Among the most commonly-heard of these is the “Birther” movement, which claims Obama was born in Kenya, is not a US citizen, has offered a fake birth certificate falsely indicating he was born in Honolulu, HI, and therefore is not a legitimate president. I’ve blogged on the fiercely-irrational — and childish — Birthers many times and have noted their wild suppositions have no basis in fact. There’s also the widespread belief that Obama is not a Christian, but is secretly Muslim, and wants to hand over the US to the Muslim Brotherhood so they can force shari’a law on the country.
Both the Birthers and “Muslimers” are, sadly, politically influential; GOP officials routinely give winks-&-nods in the direction of Birtherism (even if they also claim they think Obama is American). And Oklahoma voters approved a needless amendment to their state constitution to keep shari’a law from being implemented there.
Yet another conspiracy theory which has a lot of traction these days involves a United Nations proposal called Agenda 21. Mother Jones reports the GOP caucus of the Georgia state senate gathered to hear about how Obama’s infernal plan to force this proposal on the country (WebCite cached article):
President Obama is using a Cold War-era mind-control technique known as “Delphi” to coerce Americans into accepting his plan for a United Nations-run communist dictatorship in which suburbanites will be forcibly relocated to cities. That’s according to a four-hour briefing delivered to Republican state senators at the Georgia state Capitol last month.
On October 11, at a closed-door meeting of the Republican caucus convened by the body’s majority leader, Chip Rogers, a tea party activist told Republican lawmakers that Obama was mounting this most diabolical conspiracy. The event—captured on tape by a member of the Athens-based watchdog Better Georgia (who was removed from the room after 52 minutes)—had been billed as an information session on Agenda 21, a nonbinding UN agreement that commits member nations to promote sustainable development. In the eyes of conservative activists, Agenda 21 is a nefarious plot that includes forcibly relocating non-urban-dwellers and prescribing mandatory contraception as a means of curbing population growth. The invitation to the Georgia state Senate event noted the presentation would explain: “How pleasant sounding names are fostering a Socialist plan to change the way we live, eat, learn, and communicate to ‘save the earth.’”
Here’s video of part of this paranoid presentation, courtesy of Vimeo:
This conspiracy includes a wide range of elements sure to make the Right perk up its ears: The United Nations, Barack Obama, mind control, socialism, environmentalism, and more. Obligatory links between the Obama administration and the regimes of Mao and Stalin were offered up, too. Georgia’s Republican state senators could hardly help but drool over the Rightist paranoid fantasy they were hearing.
What these folk don’t comprehend, are a few salient facts: First, Agenda 21 is non-binding. It’s basically a whole lot of hopes, dreams & wishful thinking, and nothing more. Second, Agenda 21 isn’t new; it’s been floating around for 20 years, with no sign yet of being forcefully implemented on anyone.
But third — and perhaps most importantly — even if the UN wanted to make Agenda 21 binding on its members, there’s no way it can do so. It’s perhaps the single most useless and ineffective organization on the planet, incapable of doing anything of significance. Consider the UN’s history: Its attempted interventions in places like the Levant and Korea have accomplished absolutely nothing, even after several decades. Let’s be honest here: Agenda 21 is dead; it always will be dead; and it was dead long before any of the insipid yammering dolts who infest UN headquarters in New York ever dreamed it up. And that’s because nothing the UN tries to do ever goes anywhere.
Another factual problem with the scenario cooked up here: The RAND Corporation “Delphi technique” is not a method of “mind control.” It’s actually something else entirely … i.e. a way to estimate future demand for something. And since RAND itself doesn’t make a secret of it (cached), I don’t see how it could be used as the fuel for a clandestine plot to take over the population and turn them into Obama’s automatons.
This article thoughtfully includes a link to a chart of myriad other Obama conspiracy theories that have been trafficked over the last few years. Read it, check out the links in it, and be amazed at the vast range of incredible delusions the Right has been spinning.
Photo credit: Mother Jones.
Tags: agenda 21
, barack obama
, chip rogers
, conspiracy theories
, conspiracy theory
, georgia senate gop caucus
, georgia state senate
, mind control
, new world order
, paranoid conspiracy
, paranoid conspiracy theorist
, president barack obama
, president obama
, united nations
No Comments »
Yesterday I blogged about Indiana’s Senate candidate Richard Mourdock’s claim that rape-pregnancies are “something that God intended to happen.” In the wake of the understandable shitstorm this kicked up, Mourdock claimed he hadn’t said what he clearly had said, and whined that he was being criticized. It’s true that some Christians — including GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney — disavowed Mourdock’s statement, but some are actively defending the guy. For example, we have this piece from Christianity Today (WebCite cached article):
According to CBS News and a number of other outlets, last night Republican candidate for an Indiana U.S. Senate seat Richard Mourdock suggested that pregnancies resulting from rape are “something that God intended to happen.”…
Then again, it may be even more “disrespectful to the survivors of rape” to fail to tell them about the wondrous redeeming power of God, even in the most horrible circumstances.
Actually, yes, it would in fact be exceedingly “disrespectful to the survivors of rape” to tell them, “It’s OK, God is great, so everything is fine!” Or, “You were raped and are now pregnant? What a wonderful gift God gave you, you must be so thrilled!” Would it be appropriate to say anything like this? What if the situation weren’t a rape or rape-pregnancy, but something else … say, losing a child in an auto accident, getting a diagnosis of terminal cancer, or having one’s home wiped out in a wildfire? Do Christians really think it helps anyone dealing with any of these situations to tell them that whatever happened to them is OK because God is still around? Is it in any way “respectful” to them?
Of course it’s not. What’s more, Christians know it! Any Christian who says it would be appropriate, is lying.
Of course this is not the first time a Christianist’s idiotic or reprehensible statement is defended by other Christianists. Back when Marion “Pat” Robertson declared that the Haiti earthquake had happened because Haiti had been cursed, he had no small number of fellow Christians defending him.
Welcome to the wonderful world of Christianist tribalism … where nothing any Christian says is ever out of bounds, and where everything a Christian says is rationalized and justified, no matter how horrid or untrue it is. These people just can’t help themselves. The idea that a fellow Christian could have done something wrong, is an admission they cannot and will not ever make. Theirs is a harsh black-&-white world, one in which it’s them against everyone else, where “the Enemy” will revel in their every misstep, thus they defend their fellow Christians at all costs, because they can’t abide the idea that “the Enemy” might get an occasional “win” now and then. It’s all very irrational and even childish … but hey, what can you expect?
What this really shows us, is that these people have no integrity or character. They can blather on all they want about their morality and ethics and how their belief in God makes them great people — but they have no reservations about defending the indefensible whenever they need to in order to protect one of their own. If they did have any integrity, they’d have been willing to say, “Mr Mourdock was out of line. His words are unacceptable and I will not defend them, or him. Until he atones for what he’s said and offers a contrite, sincere apology, we will have nothing more to do with him.” It can’t damage them to say something like this, even though they think it will kill them. That’s because fierce religionists don’t have any integrity, nor do they have the courage to admit one of their own might have been wrong. They just have their primitive, reflexive tribal instinct.
Hat tip: Friendly Atheist.
Photo credit: mikmikko, via Flickr.
Tags: 2012 campaign
, christian right
, christianity today
, defending the indefensible
, god's will
, rape pregnancy
, religious right
, richard mourdock
, tea party
No Comments »
The number of Religious Rightist candidates making idiotic, Puritanical declarations that expose them as hateful misogynists just keeps growing. First we had Todd Akin of Missouri, then Joe Walsh of Illinois. Now, as NBC News reports, it’s a candidate from Indiana, Richard Mourdock, who’s running for U.S. Senate, likewise exposing the R.R.’s irrational hatred of women (WebCite cached article):
Richard Mourdock, the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate in Indiana, said in a debate on Tuesday that “even when life begins with that horrible situation of rape, that is something that God intended to happen.” …
“The only exception I have to have an abortion is in that case of the life of the mother,” Mourdock said. “I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize that life is that gift from God and I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape that it is something God intended to happen.”
GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney tried to deflect Mourdock’s spew:
Romney, who on Monday launched statewide ads endorsing Mourdock, distanced himself on Tuesday from the remark by his fellow Republican. “Governor Romney disagrees with Richard Mourdock’s comments, and they do not reflect his views,” said Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul.
But really, how far can the guy go to get away from this? Mourdock wouldn’t have made this kind of statement if he didn’t think lots of Republican voters — whom Romney also represents — also believed it.
Mourdock isn’t apologizing for his comment, even though Romney dealt him that mild, implied slap:
Mourdock issued a statement after the debate that said: “God creates life, and that was my point. God does not want rape, and by no means was I suggesting that He does. Rape is a horrible thing, and for anyone to twist my words otherwise is absurd and sick.”
No, Mr Mourdock. Your critics are not “absurd and sick.” You — and the sanctimoniously-enraged Religious Right whom you appeal to — are the ones who are “absurd and sick.” You cannot simultaneously declare that rape “is something God intended to happen,” then later claim it’s “a horrible thing.” According to your own Abrahamic tradition, your God is benevolent and only capable of doing good. This means that, if he has willed something to happen, then by this definition it cannot be “a horrible thing.” Moreover, when you state that rape-pregnancy “is something God intended to happen” then you absofuckinglutely are stating that God truly does “want rape.” The logic of your statement doesn’t work any other way. So Mr Mourdock … give your fucking juvenile indignation a rest already, and take responsibility for your own fucking words. No one shoved them down your throat and forced you to say them. You came up with them all by yourself. Bellyaching that people have criticized you for having said them, is childish. Man up, grow up, and stop with your crybaby whining.
Note, this is not the first time I’ve heard from believers that rape, or rape-pregnancy, are “God’s will.” Military chaplains have made this claim, too.
Photo credit: Termin8er, via Flickr.
Tags: 2012 campaign
, christian right
, god's will
, rape pregnancy
, religious right
, richard mourdock
, tea party
3 Comments »
I’ve blogged before about Religious Rightist Congressman Paul Broun from Georgia. He’s about as militant a Christianist as you could ask for. That’s bad enough all by itself. But he happens also to be a physician, and he uses this as an indication of expertise in science, making all sorts of ridiculous proclamations which his followers then treat as more authoritative than they are, because — after all — he’s a “doctor” and he must be right! *
As it turns out, in the course of one particular speech, as reported by Talking Points Memo, Broun managed to reveal both the absurdity of his religionism, and his total lack of anything resembling knowledge of science (WebCite cached article):
Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) tore into scientists as tools of the devil in a speech at the Liberty Baptist Church Sportsman’s Banquet last month.
“All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell,” Broun said. “And it’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior.”
According to Broun, the scientific plot was primarily concerned with hiding the true age of the Earth. …
“You see, there are a lot of scientific data that I’ve found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth,” he said. “I don’t believe that the Earth’s but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created in six days as we know them. That’s what the Bible says.”
If you need proof that a grown man in the 21st century United States actually said something this backward, asinine and ignorant, see it for yourself in this Youtube video of Broun’s remarks:
According to Broun, virtually all of modern science is a Satanic plot to lead people away from “the Truth” (as he sees it).
Let’s be clear about this: The consensus among astrophysicists is that the Big Bang happened … if they disagree, it’s on the precise manner in which it played out, or on its implications. Also, evolution is both a fact and a theory; there is no valid biological science that refutes it. For Broun to say either the Big Bang or evolution are untrue, are fucking lies. Period. End of discussion!
I have to wonder when, exactly, Broun’s own Jesus told him to lie in order to promote his religionism? I’m not aware the gospels contain any such instruction. If someone out there could provide chapter and verse from one of the gospels to this effect, I’d greatly appreciate it.
In any event, I just love it when Religious Rightists yammer too much and expose themselves as ignorant and disingenuous. It makes my job so much easier.
* Note the similarity here with the followers of Ron Paul, whom they always refer to as “‘Dr’ Paul.” They likewise believe — erroneously — that Paul’s status as a physician makes him an unassailable expert on every conceivable topic, even ones he has absolutely no credentials in (such as economics).
Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons.
, christian right
, hartwell GA
, liberty baptist chuch
, paul broun
, religious right
No Comments »
According to Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, faith in a Creator is a requirement for all Americans. At least, that’s what he very clearly implied last night in his speech to the Republican National Convention (WebCite cached article):
Our national motto is “In God we Trust,” reminding us that faith in our Creator is the most important American value of all.
That might be your motto, Senator, but it’s not mine. Using the fact that your kind (i.e. militant theists) have named it the national motto, is certainly not enough to coerce me into following that instruction.
As for values that are important, I can think of many that are far more helpful in creating a productive and harmonious society than “faith in our Creator.” Among them are: Compassion, honesty, responsibility, charity, empathy, patience, courage, industriousness, perseverance, loyalty, generosity, and … well, need I go on? The list would be endless!
In the course of spewing his Christofascism, the Senator also factually lied about the founding of the country:
But America was founded on the principle that every person has God-given rights.
Uh, no. In truth, America was founded on the principle that “We the People” — via the Constitution that they, not God, enacted — grant all “rights” that anyone has. “God” has nothing to do with it, and plays absolutely no role in giving anyone “rights,” at least not in the United States. What’s more, the only government which has ever been instituted directly by the Abrahamic God — at least according to Abrahamic legend — was the ancient monarchy of Israel, whose first anointed king was Saul. As a monarchy, that state bore no resemblance to the United States, which is a representative republic. It’s inconceivable that YHWH could possibly have had any interest in creating a country such as we live in. And according to the gospels, Jesus Christ was clearly apolitical, uninterested in any kind of statecraft or polity.
The Senator’s lie grants him free admission into my “lying liars for Jesus” club. He’ll find himself in good company there.
I’ll take this opportunity to reiterate my challenge to Sen. Rubio — or any other militant religionist — that, if you think I’m required to believe what you wish me to believe, then you’re just going to have to make me believe it. Go ahead, I dare you. If it’s important for me as an American to believe in your deity, then you have no reason not to make an attempt. I invite you to try.
Photo credit: Austin Cline / About Atheism.
Hat tip: Friendly Atheist.
Tags: 2012 election
, 2012 presidential campaign
, 2012 presidential election
, christian right
, faith in creator
, liar for jesus
, liars for jesus
, lying liar for jesus
, lying liars for jesus
, marco rubio
, religious right
, republican national convention
, right wing
, senator marco rubio
No Comments »