Posts Tagged “christocrat”

‘The Christocrats are coming! The Christocrats are coming!’ / PsiCop modified graphic, based on 1940s illustration of Paul Revere’s ride / National Archives #535721, via Wikimedia Commons (url: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Paul_Revere%27s_ride.jpg)The Religious Right has agitated against the Johnson Amendment — a decades-old regulation that prevents non-profit entities from endorsing political candidates — for many years now. It’s not as though its existence has prevented them from building a religious-political edifice of their own; but they think, somehow, that it has stifled them. They claim it hinders churches’ free speech, but that’s a lie. Right now, any church in the country can, in fact, endorse political candidates. All they need, in order to do it, is to forfeit their tax exemption. That seems a small price to pay to get true “freedom,” but they love their money more than they love their freedom, so they refuse, and bitch and whine about it.*

With the election of a Groper-in-Chief who’s promised to end the Johnson Amendment (Archive.Is cached article), they finally have someone in the White House who could make that reality. As the Associated Press reports via Yahoo News, the Religious Right-dominated House’s proposed tax plan will do exactly that (cached):

Churches would gain the right to endorse political candidates and still retain their tax-free status under a provision in the House GOP’s tax overhaul plan.

The bill would repeal a 63-year-old law credited to former President Lyndon Johnson when he served in the Senate.…

Campaign finance groups warned the change could have far-reaching implications, turning “churches into tools for secret campaign spending,” said Tiffany Muller, president of End Citizens United.

More to the point, though, it will turn churches into political engines in their own right and help them promote Christofascism even more than they already do. It will further open the door to increased Christocracy.

* Strangely enough, Jesus himself clearly ordered Christians never to be concerned with money. Among some of his more famous teachings:

  • “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal; for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. … No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.” (Matthew 6:19-21, 24)
  • And turning His gaze toward His disciples, He began to say, “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.” (Luke 6:20)

But let’s be honest, Christians have vociferously ignored Jesus’ teachings for close to 2,000 years; at this point I don’t think the poor little things can help themselves any more.

Photo credit: PsiCop original graphic, based on original from Wikimedia Commons.

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

Comments 6 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 »

Ted CruzA few days ago the Faith & Freedom Coalition held a conference, and most of the GOP presidential candidates showed up to promise this Christofascist collective that they’ll be dutifully Christofascist presidents, if elected. This is normal stuff, so it hardly merits much notice.

One of those Christofascist candidates, however, used this event to announce that the rest of the field isn’t sufficiently Christofascist. And he added a claim that’s so preposterous and idiotic that I just can’t avoid remarking on it. As the National Journal reports, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz actually thinks Democrats want to enact “mandatory gay marriage” (WebCite cached article):

“More than a few Republicans, sadly, even more than a few Republicans running for president in 2016, chose that moment somehow to go rearrange their sock drawer,” Cruz said. “I’ll tell you this, I will never, ever, ever shy from standing up and defending the religious liberty of every American.”…

He said religious liberty is no longer a priority for both Republicans and Democrats. “The modern Democratic Party has decided their commitment to mandatory gay marriage in all 50 states trumps any willingness to defend the First Amendment,” Cruz said.

Yes, folks, you read that right. Teddy thinks Democrats want to force each American to marry a gay partner. I mean, what else could “mandatory gay marriage” be? Isn’t that what the word “mandatory” means? How can he say that’s what Democrats want? If he or anyone else can offer any evidence this is Democrats’ goal, I’d love to know about it. But I suspect nothing of the sort is going on, and Teddy fabricated this notion in order to terrify his audience.

It’ll help to understand the truth about Ted Cruz. His father, Rafael Cruz, is a popular and fanatical preacher, and has preached dominionism, a Christian theocratic movement. His son Teddy is not much less extreme. Also, no one who belongs to the Faith & Freedom Coalition actually wants anyone other than themselves — i.e. conservative fundamentalist Christian white men — to have any “freedom” at all.

At any rate, the whole idea that gay marriage might become “mandatory” is so childish and laughable, it’s unbelievable that a sitting U.S. Senator would claim it’s coming. But Teddy did just that. Be afraid, folks … be very, very afraid.

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore, via Flickr.

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

Comments Comments Off on Ted Cruz Wails About “Mandatory Gay Marriage”

'Help! I'm being oppressed!' / sublate, via FlickrGOP Senator, presidential candidate, and all-around wingnut crank Ted Cruz is not happy. Like most militant Religious Rightists, he thinks “Christians” (which he defines as “politically-conservative Christians who happen to agree with him on most facets of Christianity”) are under attack. As though someone or something is trying to wipe them out entirely. He keeps referring to an ongoing religious war as though it were real — even though it’s not. This weekend, The Hill reports, he took to the podium to condemn this persecution (WebCite cached article):

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) on Saturday said Democrats had gone to extremes in their persecution of Christians.

“Today’s Democratic Party has decided there is no room for Christians in today’s Democratic Party,” he said at the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition summit in Waukee, Iowa.

“There is a liberal fascism that is going after Christian believers,” the 2016 GOP presidential candidate continued.…

“Today’s Democratic Party has become so radicalized for legalizing gay marriage in all 50 states that there is no longer any room for religious liberty,” he said.

The Texas lawmaker said this stance was against America’s traditional values. Religious liberty, Cruz claimed, was one of the nation’s founding principles.

“We were founded by men and women fleeing religious persecution,” Cruz declared.

As do many Religious Rightists, Teddy confuses “loss of ability to control people’s lives and freely harass anyone they dislike” with “persecution.” They aren’t the same thing … but they neither can nor will comprehend it.

Second, he implies Christians aren’t allowed in the Democratic Party. I hate to break it to Teddy, but that’s not true; there are Christians in the Democratic Party. I happen to know some. He may not like that fact, and he may blithely dismiss such people as “not ‘Real’ Christians™,” but they really do exist nonetheless.

As for the Faith and Freedom Coalition whom Teddy addressed, as a militant Christianist outfit, its name is a misnomer. It doesn’t actually support “freedom.” Instead, it promotes authoritarianism … specifically, Christianist authoritarianism, with them in charge, and no “freedom” granted to anyone except those who think and believe as they do.

Teddy also claims that states allowing gay marriage harms “religious liberty.” Well, that’s kind of funny, because, as it turns out, there are churches which now allow gay marriage which would be prevented from doing so, if Teddy were to get his way and it were outlawed once more. He doesn’t appear to mind taking away their “religious liberty,” even while screeching and wailing that his own is being taken away from him (the poor little thing). This, Dear Reader, is what’s known as hypocrisy — something Teddy’s own Jesus clearly and unambiguously forbid him ever to engage in, but which he seems to think is just fine.

Perhaps the one thing Teddy is right about is that religious liberty is one of the country’s founding principles. It found its way into the Bill of Rights. However, nothing about that principle, or the way in which it’s applied legally, entitles little Teddy and his fellow Rightists to outlaw things for everyone merely because their metaphysics frowns on it. Consider the implications of Teddy’s version of “religious liberty”: Should Orthodox Jews, for example, be able to outlaw pork and shellfish, merely because it’s against their faith to touch or ingest them? As ridiculous as that sounds, it’s precisely the sort of logic Teddy and his militant Christianist colleagues promote.

Finally, while Teddy may condemn what he calls “liberal fascism,” he ought to look a little closer to home before bewailing “fascism” in others. His father, Rafael Cruz, is a preacher who — as is made clear within his own recorded teachings — is a committed Dominionist/Christian Reconstructionist. If you’re not sure what those are, you’re not alone. They’re extreme religious and political philosophies which advocate the abolition of the federal government and the transformation of the states into Christian theocracies. It’s a kind of ardent Christian collective nationalism, and as such has a lot in common with fascism. So I’m not sure little Teddy is standing on any kind of moral high-ground, therefore, when he argues against what he perceives as “fascism” in others.

For those who think it’s not fair to visit “the sins of the father” (i.e. preacher Rafael) on the son (i.e. Senator Teddy), keep in mind two things: First, such assessments have a clear scriptural basis; there are a number of Old Testament verses in which YHWH proclaims he’ll punish children for their parents’ transgressions, sometimes “to the fourth generation” (see e.g. Ex 20:5, 34:7; Num 14:18; & Dt 5:9). It doesn’t seem wrong to hold the Biblical-literalist Cruzes to such standards. Second, Rafael has acted as a surrogate for his son, delivering speeches supporting him, and this appears to be ongoing (cached). If the father campaigns for the son, then the son — for better or worse! — “owns” what the father preaches. Period.

At any rate, as I’ve blogged so many times before, it’s long past time for these whining crybabies to grow the fuck up, stop pitching fits because they’re being thwarted in their wish to force everyone to live by their own metaphysics, and start acting like the grown adults they are. Little Teddy Cruz lied when he said Christians aren’t permitted in the Democratic Party. Christians like him, i.e. militant conservative Christianists, may not want to join it, but there are plenty of other types of Christians who might. This places him in my “lying liars for Jesus” club, where he’ll find himself in good company, I’m sure.

Photo credit: Sublate, via Flickr.

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

Comments Comments Off on Ted Cruz Says Liberals “Going After” Christians

Torches and pitchforks (from 1931 Frankenstein) / Courtesy of Word Spy / original URL: http://www.wordspy.com/words/torch-and-pitchfork.aspThere’s a running pattern among militant Christianists talking about rebellion and revolution in order to force their dour religionism on the entire country. Of course, they’re not admitting that’s their goal. Oh no. What they really want — they say — is “religious liberty.” That makes it sound as though they simply want to worship as they want, in their homes and churches. If that were all they actually wanted, I wouldn’t have any problem with it, nor would any other non-believers I know. But it isn’t. Rather, they follow the reasoning:

  1. I have certain beliefs.
  2. One of them is that everyone must follow my religion
  3. Therefore, if I have “religious freedom” …
  4. I must be permitted to force everyone to live by my doctrines.

That’s the religiofascist’s syllogism.

That these people have been forced to deal with things they personally dislike and view as contradicting their beliefs … such as gay marriage … is something they can’t and won’t tolerate. Since they haven’t been able to use the courts to roll some of these things back, they’ve increasingly decided they’re entitled to get their way via extralegal means.

So naturally, Christofascists have been chattering lately about revolt. I’ve blogged about this in the past. But as Right Wing Watch reports, another sanctimoniously-outraged religious activist, Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel, implied he and his fellow Christofascists may be forced to rebel (WebCite cached article):

Mat Staver recently appeared on the “Light of the Southwest” Christian television program on God’s Learning Channel where he warned, yet again, that America is headed toward a second American Revolution led by conservative Christians over the issues of gay marriage, abortion, and religious liberty.

“We’re seeing the beginning groundswell of a potential new American Revolution,” Staver said, asserting that if the government continues to trample on religious liberty, the nation will soon “run into that decision point of persecution and/or revolution.”

Here’s video of him making these comments, via Youtube:

Note that Staver isn’t precisely calling for a revolution right now (as some of his fellow Christofascists have). No, he’s predicting that, if the persecution of Christians “continues,” a revolution is going to happen. That said, there is no such persecution going on. It’s a figment of his and his fellow Christianists’ imaginations. They think that not getting their way is “persecution,” when — of course — it’s nothing of the kind. That he compares himself to Martin Luther King, Jr is particularly ridiculous … but I’m sure Staver neither can nor will see it that way.

P.S. You’ve just gotta love the irony of Staver’s group’s name: “Liberty” Counsel. You’d think this meant they want to promote freedom. But in fact, they don’t. What they want is to reduce freedom, by forcing everyone in the country — Christian and non-Christian alike — to have to live according to their own evangelical/fundamentalist version of Christianity. That’s not “liberty”; it’s Christocracy.

Photo credit: Word Spy.

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

Comments Comments Off on Another Christofascist Talks About “Revolution”

Foursquare / St Raphael Catholic Church, El Paso, TXIRS regulations are clear that all non-profit entities — of any and every possible sort — are not allowed to engage in politicking. This includes campaigning on behalf of a candidate, endorsing them, telling members whom to vote for, and so on. Among the types of non-profit entities that fall under this injunction, are religious groups — ranging from large denominational organizations, to multi-church councils, to religious universities and schools, to religious orders, to congregations, and even down to single-pastor ministries. These rules are simple and clear; there are no exceptions; there isn’t a lot of mystery about them; and anyone who applies for tax-exempt status damned well knows them.

Despite this, from time to time, some religionist with a bee in his/her political bonnet will decide to break this rule and tell his/her followers whom to vote for. The El Paso Times reports on a Catholic parish that appears to have done just that (WebCite cached article):

A local Catholic church appears to have violated IRS rules — and Catholic doctrine — by endorsing a presidential candidate in a church bulletin.

St. Raphael Catholic Church on the city’s East Side might have violated an Internal Revenue Service rule that prohibits tax-exempt churches from taking sides when it comes to candidates seeking political office in its Aug. 5 bulletin.

“I am asking all of you to go to the polls and be united in replacing our present president with a president that will respect the Catholic Church in this country,” the end of the entry in the bulletin says. “Please pass this on to all of your Catholic friends.”

The parish’s pastor has evaded questions, but his diocese has not, and agreed this is problematic, not only because it’s against IRS rules, it also Catholic doctrine itself:

But the Catholic Diocese of El Paso, which oversees St. Raphael, acknowledged in an email that the entry in the bulletin was inappropriate.

“Churches and other nonprofits are strictly prohibited from engaging in political campaigning/endorsement of a particular candidate,” said Deacon Carlos Rubio, vice chancellor of the diocese. “The Diocese of El Paso is aware of this requirement from the IRS and mindful that it does not violate such norms.” …

The primary U.S. church document on the Catholic Church’s role in politics is called “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,” issued by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. It says the role of bishops, priests and deacons is to teach fundamental moral principals that provide the framework for decisions such as how to vote.

“In fulfilling these responsibilities, the Church’s leaders are to avoid endorsing or opposing candidates or telling people how to vote,” the document says.

The article goes on to show the bulletin’s language is linked with the U.S. Catholic bishops’ struggle with the Obama administration:

The passage in the bulletin lists the number of employees of Catholic schools and hospitals in the United States, and it appears to be in response to Obama’s mandate that health plans offered by those employers cover birth-control medication for women who want it. Catholic doctrine opposes artificial means of birth control.

So while the diocese may have conceded that St Raphael in El Paso did something it shouldn’t have, I don’t see how it can possibly have been surprised by such a thing. The Christofascist bishops have gone to war with President Obama and are very clearly opposed to him. They’ve used various means — including lawsuits — to express their fury over his refusal to let them run the country and control people’s lives. Somehow, they think this deprives them of their religious liberty. (Yes, they really, actually do think that everyone — Catholic or not — is required to defer to them. Always, everywhere, and without question. They cannot and will never permit anyone to disobey them … and they’re happy to pitch fits then they think someone is doing so.)

Even though this bulletin clearly violated IRS rules, I don’t expect that agency to do anything about it. Generally they’re lax about policing that particular rule, and rarely come down on religious groups that violate it. Revoking a religious group’s non-profit status is a once-in-a-decade event for them. Yes, the IRS will “investigate” — whatever that might entail — but eventually the agency will decide nothing really happened, and that they won’t take any action.

Photo credit: Foursquare.

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

Comments Comments Off on El Paso Church Campaigns Against Obama, Breaks IRS Rules

One Nation, Under God: America is a Christian NationDavid Barton is popular among the Religious Right, at the moment. He’s a Christofascist’s Christofascist, happy to tell Chrisitianists around the country that the US was originally founded as the Christocracy they think it should be … even though it absolutely and demonstrably was not. He’s a pet historian for militant Christians of all stripes, from Glenn Beck to Newt Gingrich to Mike Huckabee. The mass media are even enamored of him, because he’s always good for a sound bite or two. Mother Jones offers this story about Barton and the hard-on the Right has for him (WebCite cached article):

Newt Gingrich is a fan. So’s Michele Bachmann. Mike Huckabee’s such a booster that he recently said that all Americans should be “forced at gunpoint” to listen to this guy.

The object of this high praise from Huckabee — and recent shout-outs from other potential GOP presidential contenders — is David Barton, a Republican activist and minister who founded WallBuilders, a for-profit evangelical outfit that works to inject religion into politics. Barton holds some pretty unconventional views, and in the past he has spoken alongside fringe figures like Holocaust deniers and white supremacists. Among other things, he claims that Jesus would oppose the capital gains tax and the minimum wage; that global warming is “self-correcting”; and that the nation’s homeland security apparatus has been infiltrated by members of the Muslim Brotherhood. He also contends that the separation of church and state is a perversion of the Founding Fathers’ intention to create a Christian nation.

Pretty much every reference to Barton that I’ve seen in the mass media — whether it’s a quote from some angry theocrat, or if it’s the reporter him/herself — calls Barton a “historian.”

The trouble is, he isn’t one.

That’s right, folks. The Religious Right’s favorite historian, is not a historian at all! He’s not even close to being a historian.

Barton’s only bona fide academic degree is a B.A. in religious education from Oral Roberts University (class of ’76). Barton has absolutely no credentials in the field of history. Not one. Not even so much as a vague whiff of one.

I expect Rightists to make a big deal out of Barton and to mispresent him. Of course they’re going to call him a “historian,” if the “history” he spews is a steaming load of fierce militant Christianism and he’s no historian at all. I understand Rightists lying about him. But folks in the mass media have no reasonable excuse for misstating Barton’s credentials. They probably refer to Barton as a “historian” simply because the Right calls him one and they cannot be bothered looking at his C.V. to see if he truly is one. But as someone who did earn a B.A. in history, I am incensed that this lie continues to be propagated.

Barton, and all of his sanctimonious fans who call him a “historian,” are now members of my “lying liars for Jesus” club. (If they weren’t members already … a lot of them are.)

Oh, and Mr Barton — and any other like-minded Christianists: If you think that, as an American, I am required to become the kind of Christian you are, then I invite you to use whatever means you wish to make me convert. Go ahead. I dare you! Do you have the courage to give it your best shot? If you truly think I’m required to worship your Jesus, why would you not do everything in your power to make me do so?

Hat tip: Peter at Skeptics & Heretics Forum at Delphi Forums.

Photo credit: Austin Cline, Licensed to About; Original Poster: University of Georgia.

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

Comments 3 Comments »