Mormonism and Islam

A few days ago I wrote a tongue-in-cheek reference to the similarities between Mormonism and Islam.

Turns out I'm not the only one to come up with this. Wikipedia even has a full page entry on the topic, including the following coincidences:

• A founding prophet who received visits from an angel, leading to revelation of a book of scripture;
• An emphasis upon family, and the family unit as the foundation for religious life and the transmission of values;
• Insistence that their religion is a complete way of life, meant to directly influence every facet of existence;
• A belief that theirs constitutes the one and only completely true religion on the earth today;
• Belief that good deeds are required for salvation just as much as faith;
• Assertions that modern Christianity does not conform to the original religion taught by Jesus Christ;
• Belief that the text of the Bible, as presently constituted, has been adulterated from its original form;
• Rejection of the Christian doctrines of Original Sin and the Trinity;
• Strong emphasis upon education, both in the secular and religious arenas;
• Belief in fasting during specified periods of time;
• Incorporation of a sacred ritual of ablution, though each religion's rite differs in form, frequency and purpose;
• Belief that their faith represents the genuine, original religion of Adam, and of all true prophets thereafter;
• Prohibition of alcoholic beverages, gambling, and homosexual and bisexual practices;
• Belief that one's marriage can potentially continue into the next life, if one is faithful to the religion;
• Belief in varying degrees of reward and punishment in the hereafter, depending upon one's performance in this life;
• Special reverence for, though not worship of, their founding prophet;
• Emphasis upon charitable giving, and helping the downtrodden;
• An active interest in proselytizing nonbelievers;
• Strong emphasis upon chastity, including modesty in dress; and
• A clergy drawn from the laity, without necessarily requiring collegiate or seminary training.
• A division of the religion into a minimum of two parties after the death of the founding prophet, with one party claiming that leadership should continue through the prophet's descendents, and the other party rejecting this idea.

Wow, there are some things in this list that even I never thought of. But I also note that they don't include the concept of clannish desert-dwellers in their list.

To be fair, the page also lists a number of signal differences between the two religions, but we are not concerned with them today...

Scalia: Out of the Theocracy Closet

As if we didn't have enough to worry about, now I learn -- sadly to no surprise -- that SCOTUS flack Antonin "Quack-Quack" Scalia has finally come out of the theocracy closet and stated that "whatever the Establishment Clause means, it certainly does not mean that government cannot accommodate religion, and indeed favor religion."

In an exclusive interview published in, of all places, a Brooklyn newspaper called Hamodia: The Daily Newspaper of Torah Jewry, we get a fascinating -- albeit frightening -- look inside the mind of Scalia, and it's not a pretty sight:

When I first joined the Court, I needed to spend a lot of time researching what the original understanding was, since the lawyers would just quote the last Supreme Court case. There are now two for sure, thoroughgoing originalists on the Court, Clarence Thomas and myself. And I think the Court as a whole has become more receptive to originalism. I think - or perhaps I just hope - that American jurisprudence is moving away from an evolving Constitution to an enduring Constitution.
I have been here for a long time now - 23 years. In that time, I think the Court has become more receptive to the needs of religious practice. We have allowed government practices that favor religion, practices to which, in the 60s and 70s, we were quite hostile. Earlier we weren’t hostile. When I was in elementary school in Queens you were able to get out early on Wednesdays for religious instruction. In the early 1950s the ACLU challenged this as violating the Establishment Clause...
A decade later the Court changed its mind and adopted the so-called principle of neutrality - which states that the government cannot favor religion over non-religion. This is not an accurate representation of what Americans believe. The Court itself has contradicted that principle a number of times - including the case approving tax exemptions for houses of worship (Walz v. Tax Commission) and cases approving paid chaplains in state and federal legislatures. More recently we have allowed the Ten Commandments on the grounds of the Texas State Legislature. I think we have been moving back towards what the American Constitution provided.
I am not sure how Orthodox Jews feel about the Establishment Clause, but I assume they do not like driving G-d out of public life. We had a monumental decision last term involving the Establishment Clause, which has been the principal instrument to that end. During the Kennedy administration, Congress passed a bill that gave federal aid to public and private schools. It was challenged by the ACLU, and the Supreme Court ultimately disallowed the aid to private schools. The case that allowed that suit to proceed, Flast v. Cohen, reversed a long-standing principle of law that there was no standing to challenge a law simply because you are a taxpayer. Flast v. Cohen says a taxpayer who is not personally affected has standing to challenge an alleged violation of the Establishment Clause. Last term we limited that holding to suits challenging congressional action. To challenge executive action on Establishment Clause grounds you must be personally affected.

Did you get that bit about "driving g-d [sic] out of public life"? I don't know about your town, but where I live you pretty much can't throw a rock without striking a church. You can't get much more public than that, and I don't see any of them having to tear down their steeples so the "public" won't be offended by looking at them.

There's a lot more to this wide-ranging interview, including near the bottom of the article this little gem: "My court has a series of opinions that say that the Constitution requires neutrality on the part of the government, not just between denominations, not just between Protestants, Jews and Catholics, but neutrality between religion and non-religion. I do not believe that. That is not the American tradition."

Cut through to the core and this means that all of us godless secular humanists out here in the Reality-Based Community are going to be fucked big time if the theocrats, aided and abetted by the likes of Scalia and his ilk, ever get their Dominionist way.

The Most Important Anniversary You Never Heard Of

Today marks the 60th anniversary of the US Supreme Court's Everson v. Board of Education decision, wherein something unique and, viewed from today's vantage, rather strange happened.

The entire court, while splitting 5-4 on the merits of Everson, came together to enunciate -- unanimously -- the following position on the Establishment Clause of the US Constitition:

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation' between Church and State.

And there you have it, in stark black and white: The entire US Supreme Court, liberal and conservative alike, in complete agreement that there is, in fact, a "wall of separation" between church and state.

Remember that the next time one of your fundo Xian buddies starts yapping about putting "god" back in government and misrepresenting the "intent of the framers" about whether this is a nation founded on religion.

It's startling -- and alarming -- to realize how far we have drifted away from what used to be settled case law, and how fragile that wall of separation has become with the recent rash of Scalia-clone Supreme Court justices.

Religion and Politics

You wouldn't know it from listening to the Fundo Xian talking heads, mouth breathers and other assorted moronic fairy-tale believers on the right wing, but the United States Constitution mentions religion exactly twice:

Article. VI. - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

...

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. [Emphasis added]

and

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

And that's it. Christian nation, my ass.

So why is it that the major Dems are falling all over themselves to prove who's the better Xian?
"I'm more religious than you are!"
"No, you're not. I'm more religious!"
"Are not!"
"Am too!"
What is this, the fifth grade playground?

Well, the answer is that this article and amendment, like most of the Constitution under the present regime, have been rendered "quaint". That and that 28% or so of people who identify themselves as Evangelical have an untoward influence on the political scene that is completely out of proportion to their actual numbers.

Just once I'd like to hear a candidate for president say, in answer to some dickhead media asshole asking about his/her religion, "I believe that one's religion is a deeply personal matter, and the constitution states that there shall be no religious test for holding office, so I respectfully decline to answer, but thank you for your question."

Yeah, like that's ever gonna happen.

Oh and that part about "oath or affirmation"? It means this: If you do not believe in god, you do not have to swear an oath. Instead you make an affirmation that what you are saying is true.

When I was an investigator for the state, I had to testify on numerous occasions. In the early days I was asked to hold up my right hand and swear that what I was about to say was the truth, blah blah blah, so help me god. Inevitably, since I thought that it would be hypocritical to swear to a god I didn't believe in, I'd have to interrupt the proceedings and inform the court or the administrative law judge that I would not swear an oath, but rather would affirm to the truthfulness of my testimony, under penalty of perjury.

So after several years of this nonsense, they finally "got it" and in the later years they streamlined it to "I do solemnly swear or affirm" etc., and left off the god part at the end.

A welcome change, if you ask me. And I often wondered how many people in my position just went along with it, swearing an oath to a god they didn't believe in, just because they didn't want to "make waves". Probably a lot.

Religion and Politics

You wouldn't know it from listening to the Fundo Xian talking heads, mouth breathers and other assorted moronic fairy-tale believers on the right wing, but the United States Constitution mentions religion exactly twice:

Article. VI. - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

...

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. [Emphasis added]

and

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

And that's it. Christian nation, my ass.

So why is it that the major Dems are falling all over themselves to prove who's the better Xian?
"I'm more religious than you are!"
"No, you're not. I'm more religious!"
"Are not!"
"Am too!"
What is this, the fifth grade playground?

Well, the answer is that this article and amendment, like most of the Constitution under the present regime, have been rendered "quaint". That and that 28% or so of people who identify themselves as Evangelical have an untoward influence on the political scene that is completely out of proportion to their actual numbers.

Just once I'd like to hear a candidate for president say, in answer to some dickhead media asshole asking about his/her religion, "I believe that one's religion is a deeply personal matter, and the constitution states that there shall be no religious test for holding office, so I respectfully decline to answer, but thank you for your question."

Yeah, like that's ever gonna happen.

Oh and that part about "oath or affirmation"? It means this: If you do not believe in god, you do not have to swear an oath. Instead you make an affirmation that what you are saying is true.

When I was an investigator for the state, I had to testify on numerous occasions. In the early days I was asked to hold up my right hand and swear that what I was about to say was the truth, blah blah blah, so help me god. Inevitably, since I thought that it would be hypocritical to swear to a god I didn't believe in, I'd have to interrupt the proceedings and inform the court or the administrative law judge that I would not swear an oath, but rather would affirm to the truthfulness of my testimony, under penalty of perjury.

So after several years of this nonsense, they finally "got it" and in the later years they streamlined it to "I do solemnly swear or affirm" etc., and left off the god part at the end.

A welcome change, if you ask me. And I often wondered how many people in my position just went along with it, swearing an oath to a god they didn't believe in, just because they didn't want to "make waves". Probably a lot.

[Originally published Tuesday, October 16, 2007]

American Muslims and the Constitution

I've said on several occasions that the Muslim world doesn't see anything wrong with an Islamic theocracy. And it seems more or less true when you look around the world at nations that are primarily or overwhelmingly Muslim.

I think Turkey is about the only one that has any kind of representative democracy, and they seem to have the church and state thing under control.

Some time back I interviewed for a story I was writing a prominent and well-known American Muslim who had been in the national news just prior to my interview, and I pointedly asked him several questions about where American Muslims stand on the issue of church and state.

He was kind of cagey and seemed to dance around the issue, acknowledging that we do in fact have a separation of church and state in this nation, which is a good thing for Muslims as well as everyone else, but then the screw got turned a little more and I asked him what he thought would happen if Muslims became the majority and were in a position to institute Sharia Law, for example, in the US.

More dancing around, some hedging and hawing, and I didn't really get a definitive answer out of him. All of which more or less lent support to my previously-held stereotype of Islam and government.

Given that, it was with more than idle interest that I read Sheila Musaji's American Muslims must defend the Constitution of the United States over at the American Muslim website:

America is a secular and democratic nation with a clearly marked wall between church and state (thank God!). One of the reasons America has been a beacon to the world is the freedom that all Americans have to practice any (or no) religion. As an American Muslim I don’t believe that America can be defined as anything but a secular democracy (secular meaning neutral towards religion, not devoid of religion or hostile to religion) in which all religions are free to worship.
I don’t want to see Shariah, or Biblical law, or any other religious law replace the Constitution, and I don’t want to see any kind of a theocracy in place based on any religion. I agree with Rabbi Arthur Waskow that “When those who claim their path alone bespeaks God’s Will control the State to enforce their will as God’s, it is God Who suffers.”

Go ahead and real the whole thing. It was an eye-opening experience for me.

Religious Discrimination Against the Dead at the VA Cemetery

National Guard soldier Patrick Stewart was killed in action in Afghanistan. He was posthumously awarded the Air Medal, the Bronze Star, the Purple Heart, the Nevada Distinguished Service Medal and the Combat Action Badge, but his service goes unmarked on the memorial wall of the Northern Nevada Veterans Memorial Cemetery in Fernley, NV, solely because of his religious beliefs: Stewart was a follower of and a believer in the Wiccan religion.

According to that inconvenient document that is rapidly becoming just a goddam piece of paper, the United States Constitution, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." (the so-called establishment clause of the First Amendment).

So what are we to make of this blatant discrimination against a brave National Guardsman who paid the ultimate price and whose remains now linger unmarked in a VA cemetery in northern Nevada because the VA refuses to place the symbol of the Wiccan Religion on his memorial marker? Seems the government didn't have any problem with putting "Wiccan" on Stewart's dog tags.

They also don't have any problem placing crosses, Stars of David, or Buddhist wheels on the markers. Even atheists have their own approved symbol. In fact, there are 33 religions or belief systems recognized by the VA -- fully 17 of them Christian sects or cults -- as being "worthy" of having a marker to memorialize a dead soldier.

But the VA rules prohibit any non-approved graphical representations of "emblems of belief" on government-furnished headstones or other markers.

Why is Stewart being discriminated against? And whose goddam business is his religion?

This is just a VA rule -- it doesn't have the force or effect of US law or federal regulation. And because it is a rule, it can be changed easily. In fact, all VA Secretary James Nicholson has do to is issue an order and it's a done deal.

So why hasn't he done so? I suggest we all write to him and ask him that question:

James Nicholson
Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs
810 Vermont Avenue Northwest
Washington, DC 20420

This is yet another reason why I am proud to be a card-carrying member of both the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State -- Stewart's choice of religion, like mine, is none of the government's business.

More Moronic Teabaggery - 'This is Chilling'

One of the few advantages of having a wacked-out Rethug as a cousin is that she continually sends me crap like this:

Don't just take your hat off .........your [sic] head is next!!!!!!!!.....This is the REAL THING.........Bare [sic] Arms!!!~!~!!!@
This is chilling ...
In 1952 President Truman established one day a year as a "National Day of Prayer."
In 1988 resident [sic] Reagan designated the First Thursday in May of each year as the National Dayof [sic] Prayer.
In June 2007 (then) Presidential Candidate Barack Obama declared that the USA Was no longer a Christian nation.
This year President Obama, canceled the 21st annual National Day of Prayer ceremony at the White House under the rouse [sic] Of "not wanting to offend anyone"
On September 25, 2009 from 4 am until 7 pm, a National Day of Prayer for the Muslim religion was Held on Capitol Hill, Beside the White House. There were over 50,000 Muslims that Day in DC.
I guess it Doesn't matter if "Christians" Are offended by this event - We obviously Don't count as "anyone" Anymore.
The direction This country is headed Should strike fear in the heart of every Christian. Especially knowing that the Muslim religion believes that if Christians cannot be Converted they should be Annihilated
This is not a Rumor - Go to the website To confirm this info: (http://www.islamoncapitolhill.com/)
Pay particular attention to the very bottom of the page: "OUR TIME HAS COME" I hope that this Information will stir your spirit. We must pray for Our nation, our communities, Our families, and especially our children. They are the ones that are going to suffer the most
If we don't PRAY! May God have Mercy... IN GOD WE TRUST.
Please pass this on, Maybe someone, somehow can figure out a way to put America back on the map as it was when we were growing up, a safe place to live and by [sic] The Ten Commandments and Pledge of Allegiance.

I retained the original spelling and other grammatical errors, just as an illustration of the kind of mentality it takes to pass this shit around. Of course the original was in a huge WWIII-Headline-sized font festooned with colors, especially red for the "shocking" bits. And those inappropriate capitalisations in the middle of sentences? The original was centered and that's where it started a new line.

My cousin, it of course ought to go without saying, is also a "birther".

Anyway back to this email that is making the rounds. I hardly know where to begin...

1. First, since the malignant Islamic jihad community is mentioned so prominently, go take a look at that that website. Yeah, it does say "our time has come" but so what? It also says this:

IN THE NAME OF ALLAH....
The objective of this gathering is to invite the Muslim Communities and friends of Islam to express and illustrate the wonderful diversity of Islam. We intend to manifest Islam's majestic spiritual principals as revealed by Allah to our beloved prophet Muhammad (PEACE BE UPON HIM) of Arabia. Likewise; we intend to inspire a new generation of Muslim to work for the greater good of all people. We shall serve all people, regardless of race, religion or national origin.

Yeah, I know. "Those people" believe that it's okay to lie to infidels, cut off their heads if the won't embrace Allah, yadda yadda yadda. Here's Snopes on a similar situation.

2. Canceling the National Day of Prayer? Here's Snopes:

In 2009, President Obama decided not to host an ecumenical service in the White House in observance of the National Day of Prayer (held on the first Thursday of May) as his predecessor, President George W. Bush, had. He did not (as is commonly claimed) "cancel" the observation of the National Day of Prayer; instead, rather than holding a White House service, the president opted to issue a public proclamation and observe the occasion privately:
"Prayer is something that the president does every day," said White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, adding that Obama would sign a proclamation to recognize the day. "I think the president understands, in his own life and in his family's life, the role that prayer plays. And I would denote that the administrations prior to the past one did proclamations. That's the way the president will publicly observe the national prayer day. But, as I said, privately, he'll pray as he does every day."

Now here's a guy who is willing to follow the admonitions of Joshua bar Joseph (aka Jesus) who told his adherents to go into their closets and pray in private. But no, that's part of that whole wimpy-assed "love thy neighbor" Jesus thing that the fundos and their wackjob sheeple can't abide...

Note that he didn't say he didn't want to "offend" anyone...

3. Anyone who has actually been to Washington DC knows that the White House is not on Capitol Hill -- that's where the US Capitol Building is, which is why -- duh! -- they call it Capitol Hill. The White House is actually about a mile away from Capitol Hill. And the Muslims? They actually did meet at the US Capitol building and not next to the White House.

4. Obama said US was "no longer a Christian nation"? In 2007? Wrong on the quote, wrong on the date.

What he actually said, in 2009, was this: "One of the great strengths of the United States ...is ... we have a very large Christian population -- we do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values."

Don't believe it? Huffpo has the video -- watch it and weep.

And what this letter-writer ignores, as does every single brain-fart-residue-enhanced moron in the Religious Right/Wingnuttery/Teabaggery is the Treaty of Tripoli, in which is found the following line: "...the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."

As I've mentioned before, there used to be such things as Civics classes in school. I can forgive (kind of) the younger generation for their ignorance of American history and government, but since the Teabaggers seem to be, by and large, old (i.e. my age or beyond) it's unconscionable that they seem to have conveniently forgotten that treaties, once agreed to by the Senate and signed by the president, are the "supreme law of the land":

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. [Article Six of the US Constitution].

No, I obviously am not making this up, but the Teabaggery will likely claim that I am, and when confronted with the truth will come up with something like "it says that but it doesn't mean that". That's the approach they are taking with Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli.

BTW, as an aside, it is that same Article Six which contains what I think may be the most important provision in the constitution:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. [emphasis added]

While the First Amendment provisions of separation of church and state are paramount to me, the Religious Right has been active in their pursuit of their "separation of church and state are found nowhere in the constitution" crap, but they don't really have an answer to this simple declarative statement that doesn't leave a lot -- bullshit, it doesn't leave any -- wiggle room.

It's an article that's mostly been overlooked in the debate, but to me it is a totally clear statement of the separation of church and state. That's why I consider it the most important provision in the whole document.

So, bottom-line, I agree that "this is chilling", but naturally not in the way the original writer intended. I am especially bothered by the "bare arms" line. I am going to assume that the intention was not to wear a tank top to get a tan on your upper appendages. This is the kind of throwaway line that contributes to the rise in the level of potential violence -- and actual violence -- that bodes ill for the future of this country.

Okay, I know I've been really long-winded today and kind of all over the map, but whenever I get this kind of BS it puts me into an intellectual frenzy. Which is probably why she keeps sending it to me. But what the hell, it gave me a chance to vent on some topics that I think are important to know the facts about, and I hope it's given you some ammunition to fire back at that IBIL* of yours when he passes this on to you.

[IBIL = Idiot Brother-In-Law]

The Great Debate on a Social Network

It started out simply enough with me putting a link to the CREDO Mobile story Tell Sarah Palin: Violent threats have consequences on a popular Social Networking site:

We must put a stop to the escalating hate rhetoric of the right and its very specific calls to armed violent action. Lines of decency have been crossed, and Sarah Palin has a special responsibility and opportunity in the wake of the attempted assassination of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

First response:

Billie: Bullshit

Me: Thank you for the well-reasoned dialog

Her: You're welcome. It describes all this "let's blame the right instead of the shooter" crap perfectly.

2nd Party joins in.

Yousef: yup. things happen in a vacuum. no one is influenced by anything.except holy wars, crusaders, sun tans and right-wingers. lol

Her: The routine use of imagery by both parties in a culture obsessed with "battleground" states is nothing new. A nearly identical map, included in a Democratic Leadership Committee publication in 2004, featured nine bulls-eyes over regions where Republican candidates were considered vulnerable that year, and was accompanied by a caption reading: TARGETING STRATEGY. A smaller caption, beneath the bulls-eyes, read: BEHIND ENEMY LINES. The map illustrated an article on campaign strategy by Will Marshall of the Progressive Policy Institute. SoSarah is not the only one to use this kind of stuff, but I guess only the Democrats get a pass. It's metaphorical for crying out loud as Obama's "if they bring a knife to a fight we'll bring a gun" comment was. There was a rush to judgment by the left almost immediately BEFORE any details were known about anything or anybody. The biggest culprit was the Pima County sheriff who was/is supposed to be conducting an investigation NOT spewing his political opinions. I find his credibility in question anyway since he enforces laws only he thinks he should. It's not his place to decide. His oath demands he enforce all laws, not just those he decides in his infinite wisdom are worthy. He's not a judge.he's a sheriff.

Yousef: Point taken. But Dem's don't lie about using it. At least I don't. But then I don't use weaponry as an analogy or an excuse. If we want to be semantic.bulls eye targets are antiquated. The use of a sniper scopes cross-hair is not. :)

Me: I am not saying that the Dems don't use it, but do two wrongs make a right? You know that I am well-armed liberal, but even I have to gag when I see ALL of the "war" imagery used in political contests. And the right wing uses it more than the Dems by a factor of 10 (or more) to 1. When you couch all your political speeches using the metaphor of war ("Don't retreat, reload!" etc.) it is not conducive to reasoned political discourse. I've actually been to war, unlike the vast majority of Republican politicians, and I take it kind of personally when they appropriate the language from the battlefield to the political field. War is one of the very worst things that a person can endure, and its metaphors should never be used lightly or blithely. Again the Republicans are way out in front on this, and no reasonable thinking person can deny that.

And another thing. Here is a list (http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/terror-arizona-just-another-isolated) of "lone nuts" who were unwitting recipients of Hate Radio's constant drumbeat of war. I challenge anyone to come up with an equivalent list of wackjob liberals who have committed similar crimes, let alone ones who were provoked by, say, Keith Olbermann or Thom Hartmann .

And these incidents are from just in the last two-and-a-half years!

Yousef: Has nothing or had nothing to do with politics in Arizona either. LMAO.

Me: And here's another bunch of examples of rightwing hate speech: http://opovet.blogspot.com/2011/01/just-little-taste.html Again, show me a matching list of liberals who have said similar things

Her: Your first list Farnsworth is chock full of extremists and they certainly do not echo what I believe in or most of us on the "other side".For example, I'm a pro-lifer but would never think of killing a doctor or bombing a clinic. The overwhelming majority of us wouldn't either and condemn the ones who do. Since you mentioned Michelle Malkin check this out on her website..michellemalkin.com." The progressive "climate of hate:" An illustrated primer, 2000-2010.." No, I didn't count the number of hate filled things to compare with your list. There's plenty to see there if you'll look at it.It's enough to say that your side as well as mine has it's nuts. That what this loon was that shot up Tucson..nutty.. Some on blogs and comment sites have even gone so far as to lump the despicable Westboro Baptist Church( I say church loosely) in with us mainstream Christians. Fred Phelps and his "Phreaks" make me sick and I have fought them for years even when they came to protest a young soldier's funeral in our area.Don't want to get in a pissing contest with you Farnsworth, but there's plenty of questionable stuff to go around and to pull back a little and tone it down wouldn't hurt on ALL sides. But to blame this shooting on Conservatives is all wrong. I would have liked to have seen some of this outrage from the left when Major Hassan killed our soldiers at Ft. Hood and wounded 30 or others. Instead for weeks we were "told"(by the left of course) not to jump to conclusions that he had was leaning toward radical Islam.Don't want to offend anyone don't 'cha know. But, within a few short hours these left-wing folks were screaming this Tucson shooting in part was due to Sarah Palin and others vitrolic, speech. Nuts are nuts and we need to realize it and make THEM responsible for their actions, A molestor of children is just that and is responsible for what he/she does. I don't give a damn how bad or good his/her childhood was he/she still had a choice to not harm a child. The responsibility is on them if they do and I have no sympathy for them at all. Same goes with these nuts that do the sort of thing that happened in Tucson, Ft Hood, abortion clinics.schools, work places etc. Put the blame where it belongson the guy that did it.

Yousef: funny thingextremists always look and act like the rest of us. If they didn't we could just point and click them to a holding cell. Extremists are by nature cultural chameleons. But the particular psyche does aggregate in certain ways that shed light on tendencies..

Me: I'm not trying to paint with a broad brush. I embrace reasonable and non-strident socially-conscious conservatives, but you know it's always the extremists who get the focus. Remember after 9-11, when every Muslim in the world was our enemy (and many on the right still feel that way)? The ones who commandeered those planes were extremists, but this country had a problem -- and still does -- accepting that.

Her: Point taken Farnsworth. Peace.

Then a new player, John, joins the discussion:

John: Maybe everyone should read the Koran or Quoran , when Mohamad calls his followers ,whether moderates or extremists ,they are required to KILL the non-beleivers of THEIR god , if you are not a muslim believer YOU are an infidel ;one who does not believe in a particular religion . WHAT part do you not understand ??? And I am NOT a right winger , I believe in JESUS CHRIST , and GOD and COUNTRY .

Me: I agree. The Holy Book of any religion can be misused by its adherents.

Take a look at this list of items, which includes genocide, violence, rape, forced marriages, infanticide, and even cannibalism. opovet.blogspot.com/2010/10/more-scary-stuff-from-quran.html

Her: Line 20 in this with the reference to Allah proves to me it's not my Bible. You're correct though Farnsworth, anyone can take out of context written or spoken words and twist them to suit their own particular purpose(s).

Yousef: @John yes you should. And you should read the Qur'an. As i have read and have a copy of the Red Letter Bible. also read the historical footnotes that put each verse of the Qur'an in context. What all of you would soon understand of is that the Qur'an was primarily revealed to those present. In the context of their particular plight of a historical tale to them. Not as a harbinger of future behavior necessarily. So just using line 20 as a reference is the usual gross ignorance and is typical of people who feel victimized. I am flag waiving American as Farnsworth can attest. But don't gloat on what Fox News passes for your education of the Qur'an or the Middle East or it's inhabitants.

Her: Yousef, What I meant by that reference to line 20 was simply that my religion does not refer to God as Allah. Sorry if I was unclear on that point. I am a member of The Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod which is conservative by many standards, but we are not right-wing nuts. We have folks in our congregation who are Republicans, Democrats, Independents, students from our local university,blue collar working people, professors,small business owners,teachers, doctors and all manner of folks.. ..each of us having our own political views.. The thing that ties us together is our faith and what our creed teaches us. We do not preach politics from the pulpit. We preach the Gospel.

Yousef: Actually it does. The literal translation of 'God' as the omnipotent in Arabic is 'Allah'. All the churches in Nazareth as elsewhere in Arabic speaking countries use that teem as well as the Latin.

John: Yousef , I believe in Jesus Christ , He is my God , I do not believe in allah as being the I AM ; what does your Qur'an tell you that you are to do with me ???

Me: @Billie-- did you read the whole thing? Those are NOT lines from the Qu'ran, but from the Old Testament, my point being that every religion that has a "Holy Book" has crap like this. And exactly WHERE in the Qu'ran is the quote that Muslims must kill all infidels? See http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080827235128AAY0Asq

Her: Farnsworth, I have to admit I have never heard of this Xian Bible so I looked it up and from what I can see, I'm disturbed by it. It seems as though whoever put it together is very hateful. Did they speak the truth or put stuff in it to suit their own purposes? I'll have to do more reading about it when I find the time to do so and speak with some folks who might be able to shed more light on it for me.Besides, although we still read scripture from the Old Testament, Christians use the New Testament as the basis for their faith.

Me: It's actually shorthand for the "Christian" Bible, Xian being a play on words from the early Christians in hiding in Rome, who left an "X" on walls to show their belief in Christ. The "X" of course representing the Cross. While I applaud you for your concentrating on the New Testament, so many of the Religious Right are fond of quoting the Old Testament in their hatred of, for example, gay people, and their insistence on the Ten Commandments being displayed in the public square. And you are right, you ought to be disturbed by what you read. Is this really who we want to be as a society? The Religious Right thinks

Yousef: If one reads the whole of the Qur'an and understands it's historical context then it tells Muslims to respect as respected. Pretty much the same as any monotheistic religion. I've heard these taunts before. You dint know the Qur'an better than I so any inflammatory Fox news jabs from a misquoted verse isn't going to win you much defensiveness from me. Just a chuckle and recognition that P. T. Barnum was a genius. And I mean that toward both Muslims and Christians. :). The Jews as a people probably know their history and Book better than the rest of us. And the concept of replacing the Trinity by using the single consciousness of Jesus as the only god-conscious is purely an American invention. Anywhere else and still in the Roman Catholic church the trinity still recognizes the prophet (human body) of Jesus. For me the justification of a Trinity is murky at best. Mind you that I've spent many more hours in Catholic school and in Baptist churches than in a mosque. This has been done primarily to separate connection with Aramaic and Arabic. The original languages of the Bible. Besides it's easier for both sides to justify war this way. ;)

John: I asked a very straight forward question , I did not get a straight answer.If a person does not "submit" to Allah ,or accept the Muslim faith ,What does the Qur'an say to do with them??????

Me: What does the Christian Bible say about it? My point is that you can do the "cafeteria plan" on ANY piece of Holy Writ and find something that will allow you to do what you want to do anyway. See the quotations from the Old Testament on the earlier link. And what do we make of these quotations from the Old Testament:

"..devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey. "

"But of the cities of these peoples which God gives you as an inheritance, you shall let nothing that breathes remain alive, but you shall utterly destroy them."

"We took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain." I have a lot more of these, as you can see at opovet.blogspot.com/2010/08/it-is-will-of-allah.html

John: After Christ died on the cross, christians live under the new covenant of the new testament . Old testament violence is no more .

But Islam has things called Surah and Quran texts 8:12-13 that say pretty much the same thing ; " I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, therefore strike off their heads and strike off every finger tip of them." I see Yousef did not want to answer . I have another for Yousef ; What does the word "subjugate" mean to you ?????

Surah 9:5 , 2:191-193 ,4:74 ,4:89 ,8:60,8:65 9:29,9:52what do all these verses pertain to ? And there are a few hundred more that tell you to do away with un believers.What I read in my Bible is , my duties are to tell you of GOD'S word ,so you can hear it ,try to bring you to GOD ,if you do not ,He does not tell me to kill you or do away with you . If you do not believe, your punishment is at your own hand and of your own disbelief . My hand will not harm you . You die in your own disbelief .

Me: As I mentioned earlier in this thread, if you truly believe in Jesus Christ and eschew all that God-directed murder in the Old Testament, then I applaud you. But too many of the Religious Right are not really into the Jesus of the New Testament -- too wimpy, I guess, what with all that "love thy neighbor" and "turn the other cheek" stuff -- and more into the hellfire and damnation that you find in the Old Testament. More power to you. You have done your duty to spread the word of God to atheists like me. If I choose to go my own way, then, as you say, that's on me

John: Well I am sorry , but I'm not a rihgt winger and Yousef ,your "moderate" friend still won't answer truthfully as to what his Qur'an says to do with non-believers . I gave you the verses, if I'm reading them wrong , then give me the right answer.

Me: What can I say, dude? Yousef is his own man and if he chooses not to respond, that's his choice And here's how the Christian Bible treats unbelievers:

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

1) If your own full brother, or your son or daughter, or your beloved wife, or you intimate friend, entices you secretly to serve other gods, whom you and your fathers have not known, gods of any other nations, near at hand or far away, from one end of the earth to the other.

2) do not yield to him or listen to him, nor look with pity upon him, to spare or shield him, but kill him. Your hand shall be the first raised to slay him; the rest of the people shall join in with you. You shall stone him to death, because he sought to lead you astray from the Lord, your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, that place of slavery. And all Israel, hearing of this, shall fear and never do such evil as this in your midst. (Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)

My point still being that anyone can take bits and pieces out of their own particular Holy Book to justify their own actions. You cannot deny the truth of that statement. So, as Jesus may have said, "don't worry about the speck of dust in your neighbor's eye when you can't see the two by four in your own."

John: You can't get out of the Old Testament can you my friend ,you did not want to hear what I said , but what I have given you about the Qur'an is what they consider their "new" testament , those verses overide all the old ones . Just as I told you of The New Covenant God made with christians . But like you said ya'll hear only what ya want to .GOD BLESS . And good luck.

Yousef: Well I did answer you John. But it was an attempt at speaking with respect to your intellect because I don't know you. Farnsworth thanks for your Deuteronomy citations. I thought you were actually making my point for a sec! Oh wait you did. I mean we did. But you must have been righter-er cuz it was the bible. Oh wait it was the old one so we don't have to listen to the old god just the new one. Cuz he changed his mind n stuff. Lol

Reread it carefully. I called you a sucka' for a cheap fight: P. T. Barnum reference. LOL why would I do that? Just calling the kettle black dude. You don't even know me and yet you are willing to pick a fight over something you don't know jack shit about. Really. Not jack shit.

Anyway, for every 'killum' bad guy verse in the Qur'an they are usually followed quickly by a short verse or stanza that says something similar to "but the best of you will not (do said thing)or [will] know better.." etc.

You may also find it interesting to know that there is actually a verse that admits the "Arabs of the desert are the -worst- amongst you". You will also note that accusation is made without a reference to a religion but addressed to the larger population of 'you'. Meaning ALL Arabs: lumping Arabs of all three religions into a single accusation.

Then Qur'an also directs us to be respectful of any and all holy site of any religion (admittedly except idolaters. Though I choose to include them). Be honorable and respectful in all our relationships and dealings with the non-believer. In this instance 'non-believer' just means a non-Muslim. But you will likely take offense to it. And also allows unto marry anyone of any religion. Which I did. And glad for it.

If you are ever interested I suggest the Muhammad Asad translation. Born an Austrian Jew he traveled the middle east for his journalist job. His translation has the most historically accurate notes on just about every verse and his formal training in the Torah just adds to his understanding.

But that's assuming you even want to understand someone else outside of what Fox and Rush could tell you. Because they are like smart n stuff.

Me: I have only one last comment, and then I'm bailing out of this conversation. If the New Testament superseded and overruled the Old Testament, then are the Ten Commandments no longer in effect?

If they are still in effect, the Old Testament was not overridden by the New, and then we're back to the pick-and-choose cafeteria plan, which was, I believe, my point in the beginning of all this. People take what they can from their particular Holy Book to justify their actions.

The reason I am bailing is that, as much fun as this has been, none of us is going to "win". We all believe -- or disbelieve -- what we want, and we are free to do so.

You know, no matter what you do, someone is just not going to "get it". I could have gone on with this discussion endlessly, asking, for example, why the Old Testament is bound up with the New if it's been superseded, why so many Xians are so clutchy to the Ten Commandments and ignore the 11th, etc etc etc.

But essentially it's a waste of time arguing with these people. They'll never get it.

Seven Republicans Who Would Not Be Welcome in Today's Party

Thanks to 50 Quotes Americans Should Remember, here are some telling words from some prominent Republicans from the past, in more or less chronological order. In this list are five former US presidents, one presidential candidate and one Supreme Court justice.

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."
-- Abraham Lincoln

"We all agree that neither the Government nor political parties ought to interfere with religious sects. It is equally true that religious sects ought not to interfere with the Government or with political parties. We believe that the cause of good government and the cause of religion suffer by all such interference."
"We all agree that neither the Government nor political parties ought to interfere with religious sects. It is equally true that religious sects ought not to interfere with the Government or with political parties. We believe that the cause of good government and the cause of religion suffer by all such interference."
-- Rutherford B. Hayes

"I like to pay taxes. With them, I buy civilization."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes

"The supreme duty of the Nation is the conservation of human resources through an enlightened measure of social and industrial justice. We pledge ourselves to work unceasingly in State and Nation for … the protection of home life against the hazards of sickness, irregular employment and old age through the adoption of a system of social insurance adapted to American use."
"I believe that there should be a very much heavier progressive tax on very large incomes, a tax which should increase in a very marked fashion for the gigantic incomes."
"It is essential that there should be organization of labor. This is an era of organization. Capital organizes and therefore labor must organize."
-- Theodore Roosevelt

"Only a fool would try to deprive working men and working women of their right to join the union of their choice."
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."
"We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security."
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
-- Dwight D. Eisenhower

"While I am a great believer in the free enterprise system and all that it entails, I am an even stronger believer in the right of our people to live in a clean and pollution-free environment."
"Today's so-called 'conservatives' don't even know what the word means. They think I've turned liberal because I believe a woman has a right to an abortion. That's a decision that's up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some do-gooders or the Religious Right. It's not a conservative issue at all."
"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them."
-- Barry Goldwater

"Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost."
"We establish no religion in this country. We command no worship. We mandate no belief, nor will we ever. Church and state are and must remain separate."
-- Ronald Reagan

[emphasis added]

Can you imagine any one of the Pathetic Clowns in the current roster of presidential hopefuls saying anything remotely like these ideas? Well, maybe John Huntsman, the only one of them who seems even a bit rational, and you know how far he's gotten in the political dogfight for the hearts and minds of the Rethug rank and file.

Think You Know Jared Loughner?

With all the media attention to Jared Lee Loughner, you might think you kind of know him by now.

Turns out you don't know shit. A ranter who goes under the name Poor Richard has a post about Loughner on his blog in which he says, among other things:

I have seen and evaluated the evidence and have come away with a very clear and unmistakable understanding of who this troubled maniac is and why he did what he did. My analysis contrasts sharply with that of the controlled press.
Jared Lee Loughner hated God and loved death. Loughner Is a Jewish Satan Worshipper.
According to one media source, Jared Lee Loughner is a Satan worshipper. New York’s Daily News published photos of a “Devil shrine” and altar found in the Loughner family’s back yard of their home in suburban Tucson.
Loughner Is a Jewish Liberal.
Loughner is a Liberal, Left-Winger.

One "media source", that being the wingnut NY Daily News. He also goes on a tirade about the books Loughner supposedly read (taken from the phony Facebook page that was put up by someone else posing as him), including The Communist Manifesto, Mein Kampf, Alice in Wonderland(!), etc etc etc. And then he makes this remarkable statement:

Loughner Was Functionally Illiterate

Pretty amazing how he was able to read all those difficult books, isn't it?

And from there the criticism devolves into claiming that Heavy Metal rock music fried his brain, that Jimi Hendrix and Jim Morrison were Satanists, he hates god, blah blah blah. Oh, and he was also a pothead who tried to join the army so he could go kill somebody. Or something like that...

And I almost forgot. At the end of his diatribe, he launches into a harangue about, of all things, Buddhists!

A Hater of God With an Interest in Buddhism
Let me for just a moment dwell on Jared Lee Loughner’s hatred of God. Several who knew him said that Jared was “hostile to religion.” We note that he did not list among his favorite books the Holy Bible. However, interestingly, he did name the Buddhist classic, Siddhartha. Siddhartha is the story of Gautama Buddha, the founder of the Buddhist religion.
Many Jews are attracted to Buddhism because it is a religion in which there is no personal deity in a place called Heaven. In Buddhism, an offshoot of Hinduism, the Cosmos is itself divine and when a man or woman dies, the best he or she can hope for is a better life in another incarnation, eventually leading to a state of nothingness called “Nirvana.” (Not surprisingly, one popular heavy metal music group called itself “Nirvana.”)
These concepts are strikingly similar to those taught by Jewish kabbalist rabbis. Menachem Begin, the bloody Jewish terrorist whose murderous activity with the Jewish Irgun Gang earned him so much popular support among Jews that he was elected Prime Minister of Israel, was a Buddhist who regularly practiced a Buddhist form of meditation.
Jared Lee Loughner’s interest in Buddhism, while simultaneously spouting he will not trust in a personal God, is common among Jews who are New Agers.

Damn those New Age Jewish Buddhists anyway. They are really the ones who are in control of the New World Ordure.

And here's the kicker:

It may well be that in the future, anyone who opposes Obama Care, or Socialist bailouts to the international bankers, or increased taxes, or the unbridled growth of the federal government and the Police State, will be branded a “dangerous enemy of the state.” The Oklahoma City bombing proved to be a boon to the builders of the New World Order—haters of American traditionalism—as did the horror of Waco. Now, the despisers of God and enemies of the Constitution can cluck and talk about how “so and so might just be another Jared Lee Loughner.” (Incidentally, one observer on an internet chat page asked, “Isn’t it interesting how the media leaped to add the middle name “Lee” to Jared Loughner’s name? You know, like in Lee Harvey Oswald?” It does seem odd that a lot of the serial mass killers and assassins are psychologically dubbed with a middle name: John Wilkes Booth (Lincoln), Mark David Chapman (Lennon), Lee Harvey Oswald (JFK), John Wayne Gacy (33 boys), etc.

I also suspect that the bigoted Jewish groups like AIPAC, the AJC, and the ADL will use the Jared Lee Loughner shooting incident for all its worth. At the least, these Jewish organizations and others will again attempt to bash the 2nd Amendment of our Bill of Rights, the right to keep and bear arms.

It always comes down to this with the wingnuts, doesn't it. They're taking our guns away! Be afraid! Be very afraid!

------

[HT to constant reader jae for the story]

Church and State

Over the couple of years since I started this blog, I've made a large number of posts on religion and separation of church and state issues, so it isn't surprising that I've finally managed to get on someone's "hit list".

But what fucking rock did this moron crawl out from under?

Way back in August I did a blog post on The Faith Based Pentagon, excoriating the Christian Embassy crowd for sticking their stinking noses into the military tent.

So now it's November, and someone calling himself "Curtis Patton" is just now trying to take me to task over it:

Where in the Constitution do you find seperation of church and state. No it is not in the 1st amendment. The phrase was in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to a Clergy letting him know that the state would not get involved in Religion. You atheist have gotten it wrong for so long you think that your wrong ideas are the truth.

He goes on to gamely try to disprove evolution for a couple more sentences, but to no avail, of course.

So, in spite of myself, I answered the lame-ass motherfucker thusly:

Curtis:
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.
So why don't you tell me where in the Constitution it DOESN'T say there is a wall of separation?
It will probably come as a surprise to you, since I'm pretty sure you haven't actually READ it, that the US Constitution mentions religion exactly TWO TIMES and ONLY two times:
One is in the often-misrepresented-by-your-side First Amendment, and the other in Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths
...
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. [Emphasis added]
And if that's not a clear indication of that Wall of Separation, then I don't know what would be.
You Fundos in the Wingnuttery are so fond of pointing out the "intent of the Founders" when it comes to constitutional questions, except when it doesn't support your own thesis.
And as far as your comments about evolution...well, if you cannot see the truth in the theory, then you are beyond help anyway.
(BTW, don't you have a spell-check on your computer? "seperation", "disproveing", "absense", etc. Please, come back when you've managed to get yourself an education and we'll talk some more -- Remember, I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man...)

He hasn't come back, of course. The vast majority of them never do. In the immortal words of Harry S Truman, "If you don't like the heat, get out of the kitchen."

Must Read: Religious Law Hinders Muslim Countries

Anyone who wants to see what things will be like here when our Religious Right's wet dream about taking over the US and ruling it under "god's law" needs to read this.

Matthew Hay Brown is a columnist at the Baltimore Sun, and today he turned his regular column over to Shaukat Malik, a Muslim CPA who immigrated from Pakistan.

This is a "must read" for its views on the way that countries who call themselves "Islamic Republics" have fared when their own home-grown fundos have gotten their hands on the laws of the nation:

Infusing religion and nationalism can produce a people totally obsessed with their relgious identity. Many Muslim countries are suffering from the effects of this combination.
Religion of every denomination provides us hope and solace in moments of despair. However, whenever religion becomes the rallying cry of a nation’s system of government, it can easily become a tool for suppression of minorities and result in fascist states.
Imagine the United States and Europe declaring themselves Christian republics, with orthodox Christianity of the inquisition era enforced by the state. I think the Muslims of Europe and the United States, with populations of 37 million and more than 6 million, along with the Jews would find life a living hell.

It's not just Muslim or Xian fundos. It's fundos of every stripe, and anytime, anywhere they get their hands on power they use it for evil -- masquerading in the face of good.

And Speaking of Lawsuits

There's a knuckledragging Rethug congressman named John Hostettler (R-Moron) who is quietly attempting to push through legislation that would prevent organizations such as the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State from collecting attorney's fees when they successfully sue churches for violations of the First Amendment.

I didn't even know about this until last night, when Barry Lynn touched on it in his talk in Seattle, but it's dangerously close to becoming law.

It's called The Public Expression of Religion Act and it came perilously close to passage in the last congress.

It's a blatant attempt to subvert the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to our Constitution, and it would, if passed, help to cement into public policy the establishment of Christianity -- fundamentalist backwoods Bible-thumping snake-handling Christianity -- as the official state religion, to the everlasting detriment of the approximately 20% of the American population who are emphatically not Christian, including people like me who are proud to have NO religion.

It's worth keeping an eye on this. I doubt that Hostettler will be able to come as close in the current congress, so it's premature to call for riots in the streets, but it does come as a serious reminder that eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

Romney and Theocracy

Just so you  know, here's a commentary from a former "saint":

Growing up in a devout Latter-Day Saint (Mormon) family in a suburb of Salt Lake City, I knew my religion as well as my name. My mom played the organ in a Mormon temple, I was a Boy Scout, and there was rarely a Sunday when we would miss church. Praying at least three times daily and studying the Book of Mormon were as essential as brushing our teeth or making dinner.
For the first time in American history a Mormon is the presidential nominee for a major political party. And while the Romney campaign has swiftly dismissed questions about his religion as inappropriate and irrelevant, it may seem that much of the media have tiptoed around this topic and have discussed the LDS church in glossy, broad terms. But here's why Mr. Romney's religion is relevant: For Mormons, there really is no such thing as separation of church and state.

The money shot:  "For Mormons, there really is no such thing as separation of church and state".

And there you have it. Everything you need to know when it comes to casting your vote. Read the whole story to get a "testimony" from an insider about what the Morons Mormons are all about.

No separation of church and state for these folks. No sireee!

Obama on Religion, Church and State

I just stumbled on the complete text of President Barack Obama's 2004 Chicago Sun Times interview with Cathleen Falsani, and it is a fascinating read.

Here are some excerpts:

I retain from my childhood and my experiences growing up a suspicion of dogma. And I'm not somebody who is always comfortable with language that implies I've got a monopoly on the truth, or that my faith is automatically transferable to others.
I'm a big believer in tolerance. I think that religion at it's best comes with a big dose of doubt. I'm suspicious of too much certainty in the pursuit of understanding just because I think people are limited in their understanding.
Alongside my own deep personal faith, I am a follower, as well, of our civic religion. I am a big believer in the separation of church and state. I am a big believer in our constitutional structure. I mean, I'm a law professor at the University of Chicago teaching constitutional law. I am a great admirer of our founding charter, and its resolve to prevent theocracies from forming, and its resolve to prevent disruptive strains of fundamentalism from taking root ion this country.
As I said before, in my own public policy, I'm very suspicious of religious certainty expressing itself in politics.

There's a lot more interesting stuff in this interview, and it ought to be required reading for those knuckledragging Radical Christianist morons on the right who are still, to this day, spouting off on wingnut radio that Obama is a Muslim, he's the Antichrist, etc etc etc.

Not that they would actually understand it, even if by some quirk of nature they were actually able to read it...

My New Religion: Dudeism

I've toyed around with different "mock" religions over the years, including Church of the Sub Genius, the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Church of Reality, but now I've finally found one that most exactly represents my personal beliefs, attitudes and the need for slack.

And that is the Church of the Latter Day Dude, based on the character of "Dude" as played by Jeff Bridges in The Big Lebowsky:

Come join the slowest-growing religion in the world – Dudeism. An ancient philosophy that preaches non-preachiness, practices as little as possible, and above all, uh…lost my train of thought there. Anyway, if you’d like to find peace on earth and goodwill, man, we’ll help you get started. Right after a little nap.
. . .
While Dudeism in its official form has been organized as a religion only recently, it has existed down through the ages in one form or another. Probably the earliest form of Dudeism was the original form of Chinese Taoism, before it went all weird with magic tricks and body fluids. The originator of Taoism, Lao Tzu, basically said "smoke ‘em if you got ‘em" and "mellow out, man" although he said this in ancient Chinese so something may have been lost in the translation.

Down through the ages, this "rebel shrug" has fortified many successful creeds – Buddhism, Christianity, Sufism, John Lennonism and Fo’-Shizzle-my-Nizzlism. The idea is this: Life is short and complicated and nobody knows what to do about it. So don’t do anything about it. Just take it easy, man. Stop worrying so much whether you’ll make it into the finals. Kick back with some friends and some oat soda and whether you roll strikes or gutters, do your best to be true to yourself and others – that is to say, abide.

You can even get yourself a more-or-less legitimate ordination as a priest of Dudeism.

Dude, am I wrong?

In the meantime, The Dude abides...

'That's in the First Amendment...?'

You gotta hand it to the Teabaggers, no matter the topic, if it's on the Talking Points they're agin it. They don't know what it is or where it is, but they don't like it.

In an exchange last night in the Delaware senatorial debate, reliably ignorant Teabagger Christine O'Donnell showed once again that if she's truly a dedicated Palin clone (rhetorical question--of course she is!), she ought to be writing shit on her hand. CBS News has the story

Republican Senate Candidate Christine O'Donnell today challenged her Democratic opponent Chris Coons on his statement that the Constitution disallowed the integration of religion into the federal government, asking, "Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?"
. . .
In a discussion over the whether or not public schools should be allowed to integrate religion-based ideas into science curricula, O'Donnell argued that local school districts should have the choice to teach intelligent design if they choose.
When asked point blank by Coons if she believed in evolution, however, O'Donnell reiterated that her personal beliefs were not germane. "What I think about the theory of evolution is irrelevant," she emphasized, adding later that the school of thought was "not a fact but a theory."
Coons said that creationism, which he considers "a religious doctrine," should not be taught in public schools due to the Constitution's First Amendment. He argued that it explicitly enumerates the separation of church and state.
"The First Amendment does?" O'Donnell asked. "Let me just clarify: You're telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?"
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," Coons responded, reciting from memory the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
"That's in the First Amendment...?" O'Donnell responded.

OMFG, this is a person who wants to be a fucking SENATOR! It's obvious that she need a remedial grammar school course in US history.

The scariest part is that she, and her cohorts in Nevada and Alaska, fellow Teabaggers, actually have a chance to join "the most exclusive club in the world", the US Senate.

What is wrong with the American people that they would willingly vote for morons to represent them? Do they believe that congress should be truly representational and that out-and-out idiots have as much a right to be in congress as smart people. Is this their idea of "affirmative action".

I quake for the future of my country -- and my planet -- if this is true.

10 Myths About the Separation of Church and State

There are ten standard myths concerning the concept and practice of Separation of Church and State in the United States. They are demonstrably false, and everyone ought to know this already, but it's always a good thing to take a "refresher course" and be reminded of them.

Here, briefly, are the ten major myths about the Separation of Church and State, promoted by the Religious Right. For an extended analysis and solid rebuttal of each of these points, please go to the Americans United for Separation of Church and State website and read Myths Debunked.

1. Separation of church and state isn’t found in the U.S. Constitution. Rather, it is a modern invention of the Supreme Court, a communist idea, something Nazis concocted, etc.
2. The United States was founded to be a Christian nation.
3. Separation of church and state was originally intended to merely bar the creation of a national church.
4. Most of the Founders were evangelical Christians and supported government promulgation of that mode of faith.
5. Mottos like “In God We Trust” on currency and “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance are evidence that separation of church and state was never intended.
6. Thanks to separation of church and state, kids can’t pray in public schools.
7. Separation of church and state fosters secularism, which drains religion of its vitality.
8. Separation of church and state means that government must be hostile to religion.
9. Most religious leaders don’t support separation of church and state.
10. Separation of church and state stifles the public voice and presence of religion.

These are myths -- no they are lies -- that are deliberately spread by the Religious Right, and they are harmful to the people who believe them, harmful to the communities where those people live, and harmful to the nation as a whole.

Here is the truth. Fight back!

It Is the Will of Allah

You know, I'm getting pretty tired of all these liberals sucking up to the Muslims in this country, saying that their religion is one of peace and brotherhood and all that crap, when everyone knows that Islam is a religion of death and destruction and infanticide and abortion.

Just consider these concepts from their "holy book":

1. "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every women that hath known man by lying with him.” In other words: women that might be pregnant, which clearly is abortion for the fetus.
2. Allah promises to dash to pieces the infants of S___ and the “their women with child shall be ripped up”. Once again Allah kills the unborn, including their pregnant mothers.
3. Allah allows the pregnant women of T____ to be “ripped open”.
4. Allah commands the death of helpless "suckling" infants. This literally means that the children Allah killed were still nursing.
5. Allah commands that infants should be “dashed upon the rocks”.
6. “For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.”
7. Allah gets angry and mercilessly torments and kills everyone, young and old. He even causes women to eat their children.

Pretty shocking, isn't it? Who wouldn't hate a religion whose god commanded all that icky stuff?

Well, I've got a little surprise for you. Go back in that paragraph and substitute "God" for "Allah", and then see this page on the Internets that will give you chapter and verse from the Christian Bible, the so-called Word of God, for each and every one of these quotes.

Yeah, the Muslim world has absolutely nothing to fear from the peace and love and freedom-beating bearing Christian world....