Posts Tagged “christian right”

Law enforcement officials investigate an explosion at the Dar Al-Farooq Islamic Center in Bloomington, Minn., on Saturday, Aug. 5, 2017. Bloomington police Chief Jeff Potts said Saturday that investigators are trying to determine the cause of the blast. Authorities say the explosion damaged one room but it didn't hurt anyone. (David Joles, Star Tribune)The movement I’ve called “the Great Neocrusade” — made up of Religious Rightists who object to the existence of Islam, and want it abolished in the US and then eradicated from the planet — became violent quite some time ago, and it continues apace. As the Minneapolis Star Tribune reports, a Bloomington MN mosque was bombed early Saturday morning (Archive.Is cached article):

A blast caused by what the FBI called “an improvised explosive device” rocked a Bloomington Islamic center before dawn Saturday, just as a small group of Muslim worshipers had gathered for the day’s first round of prayers.

The blast was reported at 5:05 a.m. as about a dozen people gathered in a room nearby for morning prayers and jolted awake many residents of the neighborhood. Congregants and neighbors expressed relief that there were no injuries, but also reacted with shock and dismay.

As I’ve said many times in the past, I understand the motivation behind the Neocrusade. Really, I do. I get it. I know all about the September 11, 2001 attacks; the Fort Hood shooting; the Boston Marathon bombing; the shootings in San Bernardino and in an Orlando night club; not to mention the attacks in Paris; and many other terror attacks around the world. I know them. I do. Honest! Really, I get it. I know Islamist terror exists and that it has caused much mayhem and killed many. I definitely am not unaware of the danger posed by Islamofascism.

What I don’t see, is how bombing mosques in the US is a valid or useful response to Islamist terror. Truthfully, Americans are in much greater danger from mundane things like automobile accidents, drug overdoses, and violence at the hands of ordinary, everyday sociopaths and criminals, than they are from violent Islamist terrorists. Responding to the irrational, sanctimonious violence of some Muslims with yet more irrational, sanctimonious violence against all Muslims, simply will not help. If anything, it will make the situation worse.

Besides, most Neocrusaders are Christians, who’ve been explicitly ordered by the founder of their religion never to be violent:

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.” (Matthew 5:9)

“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.” (Matthew 5:38-42)

Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword.” (Matthew 26:52)

“But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also; and whoever takes away your coat, do not withhold your shirt from him either.” (Luke 6:27-29)

Christians are, quite simply, not allowed to be violent. And that includes in self-defense! I admit this kind of pacifism is a counterproductive and potentially perilous philosophy, but those are the words early Christians included in the scriptures they wrote, and which Christians today claim to venerate; making sense of them, and following them, are not my problem. Christians chose their religion, and should just fucking follow it, fercryinoutloud, instead of conjuring rationales for evading the clear instructions they’re supposed to obey.

Photo credit: David Joles, Star Tribune.

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

Comments No Comments »

1099 Siege of JerusalemI’ve blogged about “the Great Neocrusade” for several years. This, of course, is my name for the Religious Right movement that seeks to drive Muslims out of the US — and then eradicate Islam from the planet. These folk are enraged at the very existence of Islam, because it’s the chief rival religion of Christianity, to which the majority of them belong (although there’s a notable minority of Neocrusaders who’re Jewish).

They’ve long used the barbaric terrorism of militant Islamists, such as ISIS/ISIL/IS/Daesh/whatever-the-fuck-you-want-to-call-that-savage-brood, to justify their demand that Islam be obliterated. Sure, there are extremists within Islam — which I’ve argued doesn’t reflect well on their religion — but many of the Neocrusaders are, themselves, religious militants; they just happen to be militant Christianists rather than militant Islamists.

Their reasoning, therefore, is nowhere near as utilitarian or “pure” as they’d have you believe. They don’t realize, or care to know, that Christian and Right-wing terror is every bit as real a problem as Islamist terror.

Neocrusaders’ blanket condemnations of Islam, of course, make them look like sanctimonious bigots — which, if truth be told, they are! But some of them have realized this, and have undertaken a different tack. What they’ve done is to declare themselves opposed not to Islam, or to Muslims, but instead, to what they call shari’a law.” This is a generalized term for “Islamic law traditions” which have legal force, of one kind or other, in some Muslim-majority countries. According to this particular wing of the Great Neocrusade, “shari’a law” is about to be imposed on the US; and once that happens, supposedly, every American will be forced to convert to Islam.

This past Saturday, as the Los Angeles Times reports, one “anti-shari’a law” group took to the streets around the country to protest the putative imposition of “shari’a law” on Americans (WebCite cached article):

Speaking out about what they believe are the ills of Islam, anti-Sharia law activists demonstrated nationwide Saturday, but were met by counter-protesters who assailed their rhetoric as insensitive and demeaning.

Members of Act for America, which has been labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, gathered in parks and plazas across the country, organizing nearly two dozen so-called March Against Sharia rallies, stoking concerns and counter-events by Muslim leaders who say the group is spewing hate.

In Atlanta, an assortment of militia men brandishing assault rifles, supporters of President Trump waving American flags and men’s rights activists wearing helmets descended on Piedmont Park, a leafy oasis in the city’s affluent, liberal Midtown neighborhood.

In New York, nearly 100 people attended a rally near lower Manhattan. They were outnumbered by counter-protesters, and the two sides hurled insults across two rows of police barricades.

The problem with this outfit is that it’s premised on a lie. There is no effort to impose “shari’a law” on any American. It’s impossible for it ever to happen, since the First Amendment prevents government from imposing a religion — or by extension, a religious law code — on Americans. “Shari’a law” can’t be imposed on the US any more than Roman Catholicism’s canon law can be. It’s a figment of their paranoid imaginations. It has not happened; it is not happening now; and it will not happen any time in the future. Period. End of story.

To be clear, if I thought for a moment that “shari’a law” was going to be imposed on me, I damned well would protest it, right alongside the members of Act for America, or anyone else who protests it. But it’s not … and the idea that it will soon be, is an outright fucking lie. It’s simply a rationale for pitching fits over the fact that Islam exists and that there are Muslims here in the US. Nothing more.

This specific form of the Neocrusade movement reminds me a bit of anti-Semites who cloak themselves behind the contention that they’re not really “anti-Jewish,” they’re really just “anti-Zionist.” Unfortunately, most of their invective is directed at Jews generally, not at Zionists specifically. It also reminds me of a subset of Holocaust deniers who don’t necessarily deny that the Third Reich went after Jews, it’s just that they dispute that around 6 million Jews died at their hands. They contend the number is smaller — often much smaller. But really, this quibbling about numbers isn’t really relevant. For instance, if the Nazis had “only” killed 600,000 Jews instead of 6,000,000, that still wouldn’t make what they did anything other than a horrible atrocity.

I note that some of the Neocrusaders who participated in these supposed anti-“shari’a law” rallies, themselves, acknowledged they had other reasons to protest Islam:

Some anti-Sharia marchers in Orlando, Fla., such as Sheryl Tumey, noted the timing of event, two days before the one-year anniversary of the Pulse nightclub shooting, as a reason to protest. The gunman, who killed 50 people at the gay club, had been inspired by Islamic State extremists.

“We live here and that touched us — and that was a terrorist,” said Tumey, 50. “We are here and they want to bring in a religion of hate and oppression.”

These people, you see, can’t even keep their own disingenuous pretenses straight! As for who’s promoting “a religion of hate and oppression,” I acknowledge that’s what Islamists do … but it also happens to be what the Religious Right, a predominantly Christian movement right here in the US of A … also does. Fucking hypocrites! Maybe they should pay attention to their Bibles, and note that the founder of their own faith reportedly ordered them never to be hypocritical, at any time or for any reason. They’re quite simply not allowed — by their own Jesus! — to do so. Ever.

What these sanctimonious liars need to do is fucking grow the hell up, for the first time in their sniveling little lives, and accept the fact that Islam exists, that there are some Muslims here in the US, and that they can never change either of those realities, no matter how angry they get about them.

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons.

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

Comments Comments Off on Neocrusaders Rage Around the Country Against ‘Shari’a Law’

Better to remain silent, and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth, and remove all doubt! (proverb) / PsiCop original graphicYou just knew it wouldn’t go well, once our Groper-in-Chief named his GOP primary opponent, retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, to his cabinet as the head of HUD. I mean, given some of the asinine things he’d said while he was running for president, and even after he’d bowed out, it was obvious he’d continue shoving his foot in his mouth, in very public ways.

Well, he did it again. As CNN reports, during a recent interview, he claimed the poor simply have “the wrong mindset” (WebCite cached article):

Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson said in an interview Wednesday that having “the wrong mindset” contributes to poverty.

“I think poverty to a large extent is also a state of mind,” the retired neurosurgeon said during an interview with SiriusXM Radio released on Wednesday evening. “You take somebody that has the right mindset, you can take everything from them and put them on the street, and I guarantee in a little while they’ll be right back up there. And you take somebody with the wrong mindset, you could give them everything in the world, they’ll work their way right back down to the bottom.”…

“A lot of it has to do with what we teach children,” he said. “You have to instill into that child the mindset of a winner.”

He went to say that “there’s also a poverty of spirit. You develop a certain mindset.”

This kind of thinking has simmered deep within Rightism for decades. It harkens back to the Protestant work ethic, which at its essences hold that, if one is diligent and works hard, then one will quite naturally prosper. The logical inverse of that, of course, is that if one isn’t prospering, then one isn’t working hard. This reasoning — if one can call it that — essentially blames the poor for their own poverty. They’re just “lazy” or something.

This thinking is fallacious. It is, after all, quite possible to work very hard, yet still not be wealthy. It’s a lot more common than most people are aware, as it turns out.

But Rightists cannot — or will not — dislodge this erroneous thinking from their brains, because it’s useful to them as an excuse for assuming the poor are just lazy good-for-nothings who’re looking for handouts — and by extension, often being given undeserved government largesse — who should instead just get to fucking work already and stop groveling at the public trough.

Of course, when businesses angle for taxpayer-funded handouts, most Rightists don’t have any complaints about that. If anything, they consider it just fine. This is, of course, brazenly hypocritical … which is odd, considering most Rightists are Christians, for whom hypocrisy of any kind was explicitly forbidden by the founder of their religion.

At any rate, I can’t think of a better example of the dysfunction, if not outright insanity, of Rightism than Carson’s attribution of poverty to a somehow-deficient “state of mind.” Can you?

Lastly, I’ll end by pointing out that’s hardly the Religious Right, or the Right generally, that blames the poor for their own poverty. A lot of “New Agers,” especially those who adhere to the so-called “Law of Attraction,” would argue something very similar. This so-called “law” was made famous in 2006 by the movie The Secret. This “law” is — to put it mildly — bullshit. A steaming load heaped right out the back of the barn. It’s a big fat honking lie. Of course, there’s not much new about “the Law of Attraction” aka “the Secret.” It’s a New Age-ized rendition of The Power of Positive Thinking, minus the late Normal Vincent Peale and his generalized references to Christianity. And its logical conclusion — that people are always directly responsible for everything bad that ever happens to them, solely because they weren’t thinking correctly about stuff — remains heinous and cruel. Period.

Photo credit: PsiCop original graphic, based on proverb.

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

Comments Comments Off on Carson Blames the Poor for Their Poverty

US flag with cross instead of starsBrace yourselves for even more religious politicking in the US. While campaigning for president, the Groper-in-Chief had said he would “destroy the Johnson amendment” (WebCite cached article). That’s the regulation which bars non-profit entities — of which churches and religious organizations are one type — from engaging in partisan politics.

The sniveling crybabies who comprise the Religious Right have agitated against this rule for decades. That it exists hasn’t prevented them from constructing a very powerful, religiously-propelled political engine … but that hasn’t stopped them from bellyaching about it. What’s more, it hasn’t stopped some of them from endorsing candidates without being punished by the IRS (which generally is afraid of enforcing it).

The New York Times reports that tomorrow, the National Day of Prayer, the Apricot Wonder will start making good on that promise (cached):

President Trump plans to mark the National Day of Prayer on Thursday by issuing an executive order that makes it easier for churches and other religious groups to actively participate in politics without risking their tax-exempt status, several administration officials said.

Taking action as he hosts conservative religious leaders Thursday morning, Mr. Trump’s executive order would attempt to overcome a provision in the federal tax code that prohibits religious organizations like churches from directly opposing or supporting political candidates.

The move is likely to be hailed by some faith leaders, who have long complained that the law stifles their freedom of expression. But the order is expected to fall short of a more sweeping effort to protect religious liberties that has been pushed by conservative religious leaders since Mr. Trump’s election.

Churches and other religious groups have whined for years that the Johnson amendment somehow “violates” their rights and gets in the way of their “free speech.” This, however, is completely untrue. It’s a lie straight out of the pit of Hell. All a church has to do, if it wants to endorse candidates and campaign for them, is to forfeit its tax exemption. Once it’s done that, it can politick to its heart’s content! There’s nothing — other than greed — preventing them from doing so.

The United States of Jesus is on its way, folks. You read it here first!

Photo credit: CJF20, via Flickr.

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

Comments Comments Off on Even More Church Politicking Is on the Way

And Jesus WeptThe list of Religious Rightists who feel compelled to yammer about rape continues to grow. They do it, even though they ought to have learned, by now, to just shut the fuck up about it already. Their absurd spew about it just makes them look ridiculous, and it’s sunk a few of their candidacies, too. So one would think they’d want to avoid the subject entirely. But too many of them refuse to do so. They’re too worked up about it, and too sanctimonious, to hold back. In other words, they just can’t help themselves.

The latest example of this kind of asinine behavior comes from the Oklahoma legislature. There, as KFOR-TV reports, Rep. George Faught agreed with the idea that rape is “the will of God” (WebCite cached article):

A controversial anti-abortion bill passed the House Tuesday, but not before a heated debate over the Bible, rape, and incest.

HB1549 punishes doctors who perform abortions if the mother is seeking one because of a genetic disorder.…

“Representative, is rape the will of God?” Rep. Cory Williams asked [the bill’s author, Rep. George] Faught.

“Well, you know, if you read the Bible, there are a couple circumstances where that happened, and the Lord uses all circumstances,” Faught replied.

“Is incest the will of God?” Williams asked.

“Same answer,” Faught said.

Here’s video of Faught’s bone-chilling pronouncement, via Youtube:This sounds horrific to anyone who’s not deeply immersed in evangelical Christianity. What person with a brain would want to worship a deity who “uses” terrible incidents like rape like some kind of cosmic tool? And it sounds horrible to the ear of this cynical, godless agnostic heathen.

But with that said … there is a reason Faught trotted this out: This chilling theology does, in fact, have sound roots in Christian thought.

First, it’s not uncommon for Christians to view horrific events, such as violent crimes, or larger catastrophes such as plagues, earthquakes, etc. as warnings issued by the Almighty. This is, in fact, what I call “disaster theology,” and I’ve blogged about many examples of this sort of thinking. It’s a very old and tired trope within Christianity.

Second, it’s a natural consequence of believing that God is the omnipotent and omniscient creator of the universe. God’s limitless power and knowledge of all that has ever happened, is happening, and ever will happen, is an absolute quality, and that has a number of logical ramifications. One of them is that nothing can ever happen that God does not permit to happen … because if God didn’t wish something to occur, then it couldn’t occur. His/her/its wishes are, after all, absolute! What’s more, since God knew everything that would ever happen, even long before s/he/it ever created the universe, that means the very act of creating the universe caused it all to happen. Thus, God bears final and total accountability for everything … and I do mean absolutely everything!

This last point is one that most theists don’t accept, even if it’s completely logical. The bottom line is that God is, according to much of what Abrahmic-tradition followers say about him/her/it, a monster who uses events like rape as tools to achieve his goals. It’s an unavoidable conclusion. So any Abrahamic believer who says they don’t agree with vicious cretins like Faught, are going to have to think long and hard about what, exactly, they believe in and what kind of God they worship. Most of them, for better or worse, have never really thought out what it means to believe in a deity who has all the qualities they say their God has. It’s just never occurred to them to lay it all out — all of it — and figure out exactly what it means. They simply like thinking their deity is all-powerful. The emotional comfort this provides, is all they know and all they care about. They ignore the other ramifications of this belief.

Photo credit: Terry Alexander, via Flickr.

Hat tip: Raw Story.

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

Comments Comments Off on Another Religious Rightist Thinks Rape Is “the Will of God”

In this Feb. 22, 2017 file photo, Oklahoma state Sen. Ralph Shortey, R-Oklahoma City, speaks during a Senate committee meeting in Oklahoma City. The Oklahoma Senate has voted to punish Shortey, who police say was found with a teenage boy in a motel room. Police officials in the Oklahoma City suburb of Moore are still investigating the circumstances surrounding an incident last week involving Sen. Shortey and a teenager. No charges have been filed. (AP Photo/Sue Ogrocki, File)Note: There’s been an update to this story since I first posted it. See below.

Stop me if you’ve heard this one before. A loud, sanctimonious Religious Rightist prick — who runs around demanding others comply with his wishes, decrying society’s moral decline, and claiming moral superiority over everyone — turns out to be a brazen fucking hypocrite who’s actually guilty of some of the very immoral crap he accuses his opponents of. Yep, it’s a familiar story, all right! The Oklahoman reports it happened in the case of a state senator in the Sooner State (WebCite cached article):

A conservative state senator who once wanted to be a missionary was accused Thursday in a child prostitution case of offering to pay a 17-year-old boy for sex.

Sen. Ralph Shortey, R-Oklahoma City, was charged with three felony counts, one week after police found him with the teenager in a Moore hotel room.…

The evidence against Shortey includes a graphic online conversation where the two discuss having sex and smoking marijuana, police reported in a court affidavit. The conversation was found on the teenager’s Kindle tablet.

Shortey, using the online name “Jamie Tilley,” at one point during the discussion about sex called the teenager “baby boy,” according to the affidavit.

I think that’s enough detail to explain the accusation here. What’s important to know about Shortey is that, a year ago, he’d tried to advance a “bathroom bill” through the Oklahoma legislature, which would have prevented transgender people from using appropriate public bathrooms (cached). Advocates of these kinds of “bathroom bills” they’re necessary in order to prevent women from being assaulted in restrooms — as though assault isn’t already illegal (and it is).

Shortey’s lawyer has said he plans to resign, but hasn’t done so yet, as far as I know. Not sure what he’s waiting for — he’s probably negotiating some kind of deal, such as continuing to get benefits, or something like that.

Update: It turns out the wait for Shortey to quit lasted only a day. The Oklahoman reports he has resigned from the OK state senate (cached).

Photo credit: AP Photo, Sue Ogrocki.

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

Comments 2 Comments »

MerryOldSanta / By Thomas Nast [Public domain], via Wikimedia CommonsThis one is a bit of departure from my usual posts about the fictitious “war on Christmas” (a struggle in which, the Religious Right contends, “secular progressives” are trying to outlaw the celebration of Christmas as a first step in their ruthless campaign to wipe out Christianity entirely). In this case, as the Friendly Atheist reports, it’s a Christian who took aim at the celebration of Christmas (WebCite cached article):

David Grisham Jr. is a self-described Christian “pastor” who once ran the fringe group Repent Amarillo. How fringe? In 2010, he posted a video of a firing squad executing Santa — because it distracted people from Jesus.

His latest stunt, done on behalf of his new group Last Frontier Evangelism, is just a step away from that. He strolled into a Texas mall, found a bunch of kids and parents waiting in line to take a picture with Santa, and yelled out that Santa wasn’t real… because Jesus was the true reason for the season.

As one might imagine, this didn’t go over well with those around him, and they reacted accordingly. And as befitting the adherent of a martyrs’ religion, Grisham dutifully whined he’d been attacked:

On Facebook, Grisham posted the video with the description that he was “ASSAULTED by parent at Amarillo Texas Mall” for talking about Jesus. There’s no evidence of that in the video other than a man coming close to him and asking him to stop yelling.

I’d considered embedding the video here, but won’t. Note how Grisham spelled “assaulted” with ALL CAPS in order (he thinks!) to provoke maximum outrage from his readers, as part of his Christian persecutorial complex. Imagine that … people don’t actually like being screampreached! Whodathunkit!?

I’ve blogged in the past about Grisham’s outfit, so these antics don’t surprise me.

As for Christians who think Santa Claus is unChristian, that’s actually old news. Back in my own fundie days, we were discouraged from having anything to do with Christmas symbols that weren’t directly tied to Jesus and Christian theology. For instance, snowflake, reindeer, and snowman decorations were frowned upon, as opposed to candles, stars, or bells (because Jesus was “the light of the world”; due to the “star of Bethlehem”; and connections to the ancient Hebrew priesthood, respectively) as well as, more obviously, creches.

In fact, there have been Christian movements which objected to Christmas outright. It has too many pagan overtones for their taste, you see. The Puritans, for example, outlawed it when they ruled England and some of the Colonies.

At any rate, the only thing I find surprising about this, is that — given the prevalence of Christian fundamentalism in many parts of the country, as well as the militancy with which it’s often followed — moments such as this aren’t more common than they are. I wonder if most of the Christians who object to Christmas entirely or to certain aspects of it, are just keeping their mouths shut for reasons of their own. Perhaps they fear that any apparent infighting over Christmas might make their religion look bad, or something. I have no idea. What I do know is that it’s not just “secular progressives” who’ve criticized certain aspects of Christmas (e.g. nativity scenes on town-hall lawns) … sometimes other Christians have beefs with Christmas.

Photo credit: Wikimedia Commons.

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

Comments Comments Off on War on Christmas 2016, Part 5