Posts Tagged “republicans”

Governor Phil BryantChristianists’ persecution complex ramped up severely in light of Obergefell v. Hodges (2015). They actually think it causes them injury to have to treat gays as though they’re fellow human beings. I’m not sure how or why that’s the case, but they’re convinced of it, and that conviction drives them to keep pitching fits over it.

Of course, a desire to be persecuted for their Jesus is inherent in Christianity’s psychopathology, and has been since its inception. To a large extent, they can’t help themselves. That’s especially true for fundamentalist Christians, because their fundamentalism has infantilized them to the point where they’re incapable of knowing any better.

This persecution delusion explains something Mississippi governor Phil Bryant recently said. As the Associated Press reports via the Washington Post, he made some telling comments during a Religious Right conference in Washington (locally-cached article):

Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant says the “secular, progressive world” vented at him for signing a bill that would let clerks cite religious beliefs to recuse themselves from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

The Republican governor spoke in Washington as the conservative Family Research Council gave him an award last Thursday for signing House Bill 1523 this year and a similar one in 2014 called the Mississippi Religious Freedom Restoration Act.…

During his speech at the Family Research Council event, Bryant asked whether critics believe people of faith will abandon “freedoms that our forefathers died for,” including religious freedom.

“They don’t know that Christians have been persecuted throughout the ages,” said Bryant, who is United Methodist. “They don’t know that if it takes crucifixion, we will stand in line before abandoning our faith and our belief in our Lord and savior, Jesus Christ.”

Yes, indeed, folks. You read that right. Bryant actually said that Christians would prefer to be crucified than treat gays fairly. Seriously. He said it. He said it proudly and gladly. Bryant spoke for all Christians as though all of them agree with him and share his deluded martyr complex … even though some churches don’t actually object to gays the way he does.

Still, that means nothing to Christianists like the governor. He’s very myopic where his faith is concerned: In his eyes, all Christians think and believe precisely as he does, and there is no variation. Should any disagree, they’re the proverbial “not ‘Real’ Christians” who — in his mind — make him and his religion look bad. In truth, Bryant is making his religion look bad, all by himself. And he’s done a marvelous job of it! Way to go, Guv! You must be so proud!

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments No Comments »

Glenn Beck speaking at the Values Voter Summit in Washington, DC. / Gage Skidmore, via FlickrIn the continuing freak show that is the 2016 election, yet another weird metaphysical moment has cropped up. The paranoid Christofascist Glenn Beck, who’s a Mormon, has been promoting the candidacy of Sen. Ted Cruz, an evangelical Protestant, for quite some time now. That in itself isn’t news, even if it is an example of the “strange bedfellows” effect — I say that because evangelical Protestants aren’t fond of Mormonism, considering it non-Christian (WebCite cached article).

No, their relationship has gone a little deeper. As the Salt Lake Tribune reports, Glennie suggested Cruz may be a Mormon savior (cached):

Beck said that he, like many Mormons, believes in a prophecy that the Constitution will hang by a thread in the last days. He said he believes that now is that time, and people like Lee and Cruz will save it.

He also said the Book of Mormon was created as a guide on how to protect freedom in our day. At the Provo rally, many responded yelling, “I believe.”

I’m not aware the Book of Mormon had anything to say about freedom, but I guess the Beckster is entitled to inject his Christocratic impulses into it if he wants to. The prophecy he’s referring to is called “the White Horse Prophecy.” While it’s not official LDS doctrine, a lot of Mormons believe in this “prophecy” which posits some Constitutional crisis will occur, which will be resolved by the institution of a mainly-Mormon Christocracy. How the Constitution could possibly be “saved” by the institution of a decidedly-unconstitutional theocracy, is beyond my comprehension. It sure sounds like a contradiction in terms to me — but then, what could I, cynical, insolent, godless agnostic heathen that I am, possibly know about such important sacred things? It’s also strange that Beckie-boy woudl portray an evangelical Protestant as the guy who will, someday, establish a Mormon theocracy. That also makes no sense.

For me, the much more important consideration is that Beckie-boy has aligned himself with a guy whose sect of Christianity is rather plainly hostile to his own (cached). Yeah, I get that both Glennie and Teddie are Christofacists, but ultimately their goals are divergent. If either gets the kind of government he wants, sectarian conflict will erupt which could destroy the other. It’s as bad as Catholic bishops making nice with the evangelical Protestants within the Religious Right movement; they, too, might one day rue that alliance.

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore, via Flickr.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments 3 Comments »

Ben CarsonOne thing I’ve learned about Republicans over the years is that, when they say stupid, untrue, or asinine things, they generally refuse to back down from them or admit error. Yes, even when if they’ve had to issue an apology (or, more likely, a non-apology apology). After having dug themselves into a hole, rather than drop the shovel and climb out, they just keep right on digging.

Why do they do this? It’s because they’re playing to the dysfunctional and irrational psychopathology of the Republican “base.” The “base” is never happy with a candidate who appears to change his/her mind on something. They’re quick to condemn with the label “flip-flopper,” and will accuse the person of “caving in” to the Left or the mass media. Especially in the case of Republicans running in any kind of primary election, this is something they’ll never risk doing.

Which leads me to this week’s example of a bone-headed Republican who’s engaged in this time-honored Rightist tactic of digging himself deeper. As Politico reports, that would be GOP presidential candidate and Religious Right darling Ben Carson, who keeps talking like a Neocrusader (WebCite cached article):

American Muslims who adhere to Islamic sharia law while also embracing the American values of democracy, including the separation of church and state, must be “schizophrenic,” Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson said Tuesday.

“Only if they’re schizophrenic. I don’t see how they can do it otherwise, because you have two different philosophies” in conflict with each other, he explained to Breitbart News Daily host Stephen Bannon, who had posed the question to the retired neurosurgeon.

Right from the start I have to point out that Carson misuses the word “schizophrenic.” Rather than schizophrenia — which is a cognitive disorder — he’s alluding, instead, to dissociative identity disorder, which used to be known as “multiple personalities.” As a retired neurosurgeon, Carson certainly knows better than to make this bush-league mistake.

But the substance of his remark is similar to the reasoning he gave back in September when he declared all Muslims inelegible to be president. His reasoning, then, was something about Muslims being incapable of upholding the Constitution. The real irony of that, of course, is that such an idea is, itself, inherently unconstitutional, since the Constitution contains a provision known as the “no religious test” clause. Yes, it’s true. The Constitution explicitly forbids such a prohibition. Article VI section 3 ends as follows:

… no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

So in the name of preserving the Constitution by preventing Muslims from ever being President, Carson would have us break it. Well done, sir, well done! Hypocrite much? I wonder what your Jesus would say about that? Oh wait … he already ordered you never to be hypocritical! Woops.

Carson also evidently subscribes to the notion — popular on the Right and especially among Neocrusaders — that Islam isn’t just a religion, it’s a philosophy and a set of laws as well, that all Muslims everywhere subscribe to. This belief ignores the fact that there’s a wide range of thinking among Muslims, leading to the many Islamic sects and schools of thought that exist. There’s no more unity among Muslims than there is among Christians (something which evidently goes back to Christianity’s first years). Carson, as a member of a Christian sect that many other Christians (falsely) reject as un-Christian, Carson can’t fail to be aware this kind of variation is possible.

At any rate, it’s clear that Bennie is doubling down as a Neocrusader. I assume this is a last-ditch effort to appeal to South Carolina evangelicals and keep his campaign alive. In other words, he’s using the Great Neocrusade as a king of “life support.” Pitiful.

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore, via Flickr.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments No Comments »

'Go ahead, say 'Happy Holidays' and make my day'  / Modified still from Sudden ImpactWhile this is (arguably) more amusing than anything else, this story exemplifies the sanctimony of the so-called “Christmas warriors,” those Christians who’re convinced there’s a “war on Christmas” in the US and that the Forces of Darkness (aka “secular progressives,” “New Atheists,” the ACLU, etc.) are trying to outlaw it as an opening step toward abolishing Christianity entirely. As I’ve blogged for many years no, no such effort exists, but that doesn’t stop militant Christianists from deluding themselves into thinking it’s real.

The latest Christmas warrior I’ve heard about, as the Houston Chronicle reports, is Texas Commissioner of Agriculture Sid Miller, naturally a Republican (WebCite cached article):

Miller wrote on Facebook – in a post that’s been shared almost 2,000 times and liked by 5,000 fans – that he’s ready to get physical with the next person that wishes him a “Happy Holidays.”

Miller wrote: “If one more person says Happy Holidays to me I just might slap them. Either tell me Merry Christmas or just don’t say anything.” The post is accompanied with an image of a cowboy on a steer riding under a pharmacy sign that says “We will never take the Christ out of Christmas.”

Here’s his threat as it appeared on Facebook:

Sid Miller, Texas Ag Commissioner, posting on Facebook

Sid Miller, Texas Ag Commissioner, posting on Facebook

How wonderful — not to mention Christian — of the guy! You can almost feel all that Yuletide “peace on earth, goodwill toward men” oozing from that post.

I have to hand it to the Texas Democratic Party for posting a reply via a comment on the post which is an 80s-video-game-style animated image saying “Happy Holidays.” The Chron points out some of Miller’s past mouthiness (particularly a time he threatened to nuke all Muslims). Yeah, he’s that kind of Texan, and not too different from what I’ve come to expect from the Texas GOP (which has given us the Christofascist likes of Louie Gohmert and Ted Cruz).

Photo credit: Top, modified still from Sudden Impact; middle, Sid Miller via Facebook.

Hat tip: Raw Story.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments No Comments »

Rick Santorum lowering his head to pray at an Arizona Republican Party fundraiser in Phoenix, Arizona / Gage Skidmore, via FlickrAdd former Pennsylvania Senator — and current back-of-the-pack GOP presidential candidate — Rick Santorum to the list of militant Christianists who claim Islam isn’t really a religion and therefore isn’t protected by the Bill of Rights — which, ironically, was ratified 224 years ago this very day (WebCite cached article). Mediate reports on the Rickster’s idiotic Christofascist blather (cached):

Santorum even argued that Islamic principles are not entitled to complete religious protections due to the religion’s embrace of beliefs that are fundamentally incompatible with the Constitution.

“Islam is different. I mean that sincerely, Islam is not just a religion,” Santorum said. “It is a political governing structure. The fact of the matter is, Islam is a religion, but it is also Sharia law, a civil government, a form of government. So the idea that that is protected under the First Amendment is wrong.

Note Rickie’s yammering and whining about shari’a law. He presumes it’s part and parcel of Islam and that anyone who follows that religion is obliged to follow shari’a law as well. He forgets two important things: First, there is no single entity known as shari’a law … different sects and cultures view it differently; and not all Muslims, even devout ones, want to live by any form of shari’a law at all (many came to places like the US and Europe specifically in order to get away from it).

Like many Christofascists Rickie-boy employs his own subjective definition of “Islam” in order to argue that Islam is something other than a religion and therefore isn’t entitled to the religious freedom provisions of US law. It’s a ridiculous premise, of course, but these folk are so sanctimoniously outraged that Islam exists — and that there are actually Muslims still living in the world! — that they just can’t control themselves long enough to understand how fucking childish they are. They view Islam as Christianity’s main rival, on a global scale, and simply can’t get over that some people prefer it to their faith.

About the only thing I agree with the Rickster about is that, as far as I know, barring Muslims from entering the country isn’t specifically unconstitutional. Yes, it would be stupid. It would paint people with far too broad a brush. It would be difficult to enforce; visa applications, as far I’m aware, have no line item for “religion,” but even if they did, people could certainly lie. It would wall off the US from the entire Muslim world, which is enormous. It would, quite simply, be a petulant and childish overreaction to Islamist terror … which could be better handled in other ways. But even with all that said, people who aren’t American citizens and who are trying to enter the country, don’t — as far as I know — have any Constitutional right of entry. (I invite any Constitutional scholars who read this, and think otherwise, to instruct me further on the matter.)

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore, via Flickr.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments No Comments »

'Here's the 2015 Capitol Christmas Tree' / House Speaker Paul RyanDid you know that, right here in the good old US of A, there have been efforts underway to “ban references to Christmas”? I hadn’t. Then again, I don’t subscribe to the Religious Right’s (incredibly baseless) belief that there’s a “war on Christmas,” in which “secular progressives” and atheists and agnostics and all sorts of other vile anti-American non-Christians are trying to outlaw Christmas so that, in turn, they can abolish Christianity altogether. I mean, it’s so ridiculous a scenario as to be laughable … if not for the fact that Christians actually believe it and are actually behaving as though it’s true.

A case in point is House resolution 564 proposed by Christianist Rep. Doug Lamborn of Colorado, which reads (WebCite cached version):

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the symbols and traditions of Christmas should be protected for use by those who celebrate Christmas.

Whereas Christmas is a national holiday celebrated on December 25; and

Whereas the Framers intended that the First Amendment of the Constitution, in prohibiting the establishment of religion, would not prohibit any mention of religion or reference to God in civic dialog: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the House of Representatives–

(1) recognizes the importance of the symbols and traditions of Christmas;

(2) strongly disapproves of attempts to ban references to Christmas; and

(3) expresses support for the use of these symbols and traditions by those who celebrate Christmas.

Yes, that’s right, Rep. Lamborn repeats the militant Christianist lie that there truly are efforts “to ban references to Christmas” in the US. I dare him — or any other of his Christianist ilk — to produce just one piece of proposed legislation, at any level (borough, municipal, county, state or federal) that has ever been offered which does any such thing.

I will assume he and his fellow Christianists would view efforts to keep Christmas out of government as being “bans” along these lines … but they’re not. Even if government officials can’t actively promote Christmas, that doesn’t mean Christians aren’t able to do so in their private lives, in their workplaces (employer permitting), or in their churches. They can — and do! — talk about Christmas endlessly. No one is trying to “ban” that. At all!

Again, and to be clear: Christmas doesn’t need any “protection,” whether from Congress or anyone or anything else. It’s not going anywhere. It’s not being outlawed. Period. If you think otherwise, you’re an idiot and need to grow up already. Yes, that goes for Rep. Lamborn and all the rest of this resolution’s proponents … they desperately need to fucking grow the hell up, too.

Photo credit: Office of House Speaker Paul Ryan.

Hat tip: Friendly Atheist.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments No Comments »

Husité - Jenský kodexThe Paris attacks a week ago have brought out the raging Neocrusader which lurks deep inside most Rightists here in the US. GOP presidential contenders have tripped over each other — not to mention themselves — trying to exhibit their Neocrusading credentials. They particularly have their knickers in knots over plans to bring around 10,000 Syrian refugees into the US (WebCite cached article).

Former Florida governor Jeb Bush has said the US should admit only Syrians who can demonstrate they’re Christian (cached). He hasn’t explained how they’re supposed to provide this proof. Plus, wouldn’t a committed Islamist terrorist be able to “fake” being a Christian in order to get into the US, assuming there’s a meaningful way to do so? (And no, don’t assume Islamists would never pass themselves off as belonging to some other religion; there are no safe assumptions one can make about them.)

Then there’s the Christofascist Ted Cruz, Senator from Texas, who likewise called for admitting only Christians from among the Syrian refugees vying for entry (cached). As with the Jebster, Teddie assumes it’s “safe” to admit any Syrian who says s/he’s a Christian, and he doesn’t account for any means to verify such a claim in any serious way.

But neither of these misguided Christianist notions holds a candle to what real estate mogul and leading GOP contender Donald Trump came up with. He’s declared that he wants Muslims in the US to carry special identification and/or be tracked in a special database (cached). Yes, that’s right, he’s proposing we treat Muslims in ways the Third Reich had treated Jews (cached).

Likewise embracing Nazi tactics is Rhode Island state senator Elaine Morgan, who wants Syrian refugees who end up in her state to be placed in special camps (cached). Gee, those sound like concentration camps or internment camps to me.

None of this should be construed as dismissing any possible danger from Syrian refugees. Of course it exists and is real, especially since at least one of the Paris attackers — all of whom were actually European nationals — had returned to Europe posing as a refugee and may have planted a fake or stolen Syrian passport he’d used to come into Greece posing as a refugee (cached). It’s undeniable that a terrorist might try to enter the US as a refugee. But the process of getting to the US is time-consuming — upwards of 18 months, and usually around 2 years (cached). While the vetting process is far from perfect, as administration officials admit (cached) — and Rightists love to use these admissions to justify their Neocrusading impulses — this scenario nevertheless forces enraged Islamist terrorists bent on massacring innocents to sit around and do nothing, somewhere in Europe, for around 2 years before they can reach America. This alone makes it an unlikely tactic for them to use. A much more efficient tactic would be for them to recruit terrorists from among people already in the US or Canada … which has actually been done (cached).

I very much understand the fear these Neocrusaders exploit. It has a basis in reality … but the measures being promised are far too draconian, and won’t guarantee Americans’ safety in any event. What’s needed is better intelligence, and better action on that intelligence, to better pinpoint who the terrorists are, where they are, what they’re up to, and whom they’re in contact with. Broad policies, such as blocking Syrian immigration altogether or applying a specious religious test to it, really aren’t going to be much help, if we’re not willing to apply the intelligence we already have available (which, as Edward Snowden revealed, is extensive).

Not to mention, the average American is much more likely to become a victim of domestic Rightist terror rather than Islamist terror. But that’s another story entirely … !

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments No Comments »