The Show

Alert the FBI. Someone has kidnapped the invariably progressive and realistic Robert Reich and is tweeting from his account.

Susan Collins joined John Lewis in Selma for the 50th Anniversary of Bloody Sunday. Lisa Murkowski is the only Republican who voted to bring the John Lewis Voting Rights Act to a vote last fall. And Mitt Romney voted to convict Trump in the first impeachment trial.

Worth a try.

— Robert Reich (@RBReich) January 11, 2022

President Biden is still afraid of the reaction from the "defeated president" if he dare to utter the name "Donald Trump." But he continually called Republicans when in Georgia he remarked

The Vice President and I have supported voting rights bills since day one of this administration.  But each and every time, Senate Republicans have blocked the way.  Republicans oppose even debating the issue.  You hear me?...

Not a single Republican has displayed the courage to stand up to a defeated president to protect America’s right to vote.  Not one.  Not one....

The filibuster is not used by Republicans to bring the Senate together but to pull it further apart.

Maybe there is nothing to lose by trying to court Republicans, although it's unlikely to bear fruit. Susan Collins' photo-op in Selma for the 59th anniversary of Bloody Sunday and Mitt Romney's vote to convict Donald Trump in one of two impeachment trials should give no encouragement.

Susan Collins marched in Selma to demonstrate her "disappointment" because she's always "concerned," though rarely enough to deviate from the Trump Party line.  And Mitt Romney marched in a Black Lives Matter protest so he can be seen at a time when anyone who is anyone was on the black lives matter train (now, not so much).  There is little to show for that concern while Romney remains dead set against reforming the filibuster.

"You will recognize them by their fruits," Jesus Christ reportedly warned.  Mitt Romney and, especially, Susan Collins put on an act. They're there for the photo-ops and the quotes of little substance. (Lisa Murkowski is more low-key.) But they are, like 48 of their GOP colleagues, aware that their party will gain a majority, and power in Congress and the White House, only if individuals are discouraged from voting. 

Share |

Bible Aside, Still Not Right

Sometimes controversy brings out the best in talk shows and even a bad show can present an interesting and edifying interview.

And so  it went when Joe Scarborough and almost assistant co-host Mika Brzezinski interviewed Mike Huckabee (video here), Kim Davis' most visible supporter, on "Morning Joe" Wednesday.  Joe Scarborough tried to go toe-to-toe with Huckabee on Scripture. "Obviously," the Joe in "Morning Joe" stated, "we disagree on, uh, constitutional grounds here. I want to ask you, though, biblically, um, what are the biblical grounds of somebody that works for Caesar not rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's?"

After Huckabee responded, Brzezinski tried at least three times to get the former governor to answer "What if Kim Davis wanted to get a third or fourth marriage license from somebody who truly believes that you should only get married once?” Brzezinki asked. “What would you say to that?”

Huckabee avoided answering each time, though he helpfully pointed out that Davis already has been married four times, which would qualify her for a fifth marriage license, were she to divorce her current husband.  As Salon's Scott Eric Kauffman explains

Joe Scarborough jumped in at this point, noting that “Jesus focused a lot more on divorce, focused a lot more on lust, focused a lot more on the poor, focused a lot more on clothing the naked, visiting people in jail, taking care of the hopeless than he did on homosexuality. In fact, he never mentioned homosexuality.”

“You can read the text of the gospel and what Jesus Christ said,” he continued, “and there’s a lot more condemnation for people like myself who have been divorced than there is condemnation for people that participate in the gay lifestyle.”

Huckabee replied, “homosexual marriage was not an issue in the First Century,” to which Scarborough countered that that’s not the point. ” Jesus was much more explicit about divorce and you can much more easily make an argument that a judge would refuse to grant divorces because Jesus was far more explicit about divorce equaling adultery.

Scarborough's argument falls short on two bases. The apostle Paul famously (or infamously, depending upon your viewpoint) slammed homosexuality, in 1 Corinthians maintaining" Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men."   And in Romans:"the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."

Skeptics question whether Paul actually made these statements. But it is precisely the same book which includes these words, and by the same authority that they are uttered, which quotes Jesus as saying what he did about divorce, adultery, and a myriad of other things. Question both Paul and Jesus, if you will; but questioning one and not the other is intellectually dubious.

And as it turns out, Scarborough is disingenuous, albeit not dishonest, about Jesus' view of same-sex relations.  Jesus condemned "sexual immorality," which this Christian apologist believes derives from the Greek word "porneia," which refers to "prostitution, unchastity, fornication of every kind of unlawful sexual intercourse." That appears to be anything which deviates from accepted social and religious norms.

Jesus, as Scarborough observes, did not speak specifically of homosexuality. But when he condemned divorce, he made quite clear (as in Matthew 19:3-6) that he assumed marriage as being between one man and one woman.

Though Huckabee noted "homosexual marriage was not an issue in the first century," his failure to eviscerate Scarborough and Brzezinski on Scripture demonstrates that he has lost something off his fastball. Moreover, he is wrong when he suggests, contrary to Marbury v. Madison, that the US Supreme Court's determination of the constitutionality of a statute is not always legally binding.  He is not a lawyer (or a doctor), and should not play one on TV (genesis of that, here; video below). Kim Davis has no legal right to violate her oath of office and not carry out her duties, even if consistent with her religious faith.








The books of the Bible were composed nearly 2,000 years ago with instructions practical and moral for individuals of that time and for some time thereafter. Circumstances have changed, though, and we have the benefit of hindsight and dramatically altered conditions.

We have also a Constitution, against which Justices can judge a law, and which provides the basis for the reasoning of eight Justices on same-sex marriage. (Anthony Kennedy is more concerned with social policy and Confucius.)  The same God whom Mike Huckabee believes is appalled at same-sex marriage gave us the ability to think and reason, and to obey legitimately-established authority.






Share |

Pope Francis Mentioned Him 125+ Times More Than Did Rush Limbaugh


And Jesus said to his disciples, "Truly, I say to you, only with difficulty will a rich person enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 19:23, English Standard Version)


In a rant Wednesday, Rush Limbaugh criticized Pope Francis for not pledging allegiance to limitless consumerism, unlimited capitalism, and outsourcing jobs.  Really:

They have been unable to meet the demand, for whatever reason.  They have just recently caught up, and would you like to know how they did it?  They have put one million people on different assembly lines, 600 employees per assembly line at the factory in China at the one factory, where they are making 500,000 iPhones a day, and they still haven't caught up to demand. 

That's a lot of people who are thrilled with something new to buy. A lot of people in China make a lot of money on these places.  I mean, they're not paid what they're paid in America, but they're paid much higher than anybody else in China at these factories.  There's a lot of income being earned.  There's a lot of product being made.  There are a lot of taxes being paid.  There's all kinds of economic activity taking place.  It is stunning.  One hundred production lines, 600 people per line.

A total of more than 300,000 workers dedicated solely to building one product, the iPhone 5S, in one factory.  And this company has many different factories. They make 500,000 phones a day, and they still haven't caught up.  Now, there's a new phone from Motorola, the Moto X.  It has sold 500,000 in one quarter, and the iPhone 5S is selling 500,000 a day, and that's even short of demand.

That's a lot of people thrilled at something new to buy. 

Contrast that with the remarks in the "Apostolic Exhortation" in which Pope Francis observed

Almost without being aware of it, we end up being incapable of feeling compassion at the outcry of the poor, weeping for other people’s pain, and feeling a need to help them, as though all this were someone else’s responsibility and not our own. The culture of prosperity deadens us; we are thrilled if the market offers us something new to purchase; and in the meantime all those lives stunted for lack of opportunity seem a mere spectacle; they fail to move us.

The Pope courageously and incisively added some thoughts even Bernie Sanders probably wouldn't (couldn't) dare utter, at one point maintaining "one cause" of "lack of opportunity"

is found in our relationship with money, since we calmly accept its dominion over ourselves and our societies. The current financial crisis can make us overlook the fact that it originated in a profound human crisis: the denial of the primacy of the human person! We have created new idols. The worship of the ancient golden calf (cf. Ex 32:1-35) has returned in a new and ruthless guise in the idolatry of money and the dictatorship of an impersonal economy lacking a truly human purpose. The worldwide crisis affecting finance and the economy lays bare their imbalances and, above all, their lack of real concern for human beings; man is reduced to one of his needs alone: consumption.

He tackled inequality by arguing

just as the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” sets a clear limit in order to safeguard the value of human life, today we also have to say “thou shalt not” to an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such an economy kills. How can it be that it is not a news item when an elderly homeless person dies of exposure, but it is news when the stock market loses two points? This is a case of exclusion. Can we continue to stand by when food is thrown away while people are starving? This is a case of inequality. Today everything comes under the laws of competition and the survival of the fittest, where the powerful feed upon the powerless. As a consequence, masses of people find themselves excluded and marginalized: without work, without possibilities, without any means of escape.

While the earnings of a minority are growing exponentially, so too is the gap separating the majority from the prosperity enjoyed by those happy few. This imbalance is the result of ideologies which defend the absolute autonomy of the marketplace and financial speculation. Consequently, they reject the right of states, charged with vigilance for the common good, to exercise any form of control. A new tyranny is thus born, invisible and often virtual, which unilaterally and relentlessly imposes its own laws and rules. Debt and the accumulation of interest also make it difficult for countries to realize the potential of their own economies and keep citizens from enjoying their real purchasing power. To all this we can add widespread corruption and self-serving tax evasion, which have taken on worldwide dimensions. The thirst for power and possessions knows no limits. In this system, which tends to devour everything which stands in the way of increased profits, whatever is fragile, like the environment, is defenseless before the interests of a deified market, which become the only rule.

Limbaugh was not amused, and weaved criticism of the pontiff into condemnation of the Democratic Party (quelle surprise!) and even suggested the pope is a knave or dupe: "what this is, somebody has either written this for him or gotten to him.  This is just pure Marxism coming out of the mouth of the pope."  He was particularly exorcised by Pope Francis' recognition

In this context, some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting. To sustain a lifestyle which excludes others, or to sustain enthusiasm for that selfish ideal, a globalization of indifference has developed.

Pope Francis hardly could have been more explicit if he had mentioned the perpetual conservative saint himself, Ronald(6) Wilson(6) Reagan(6).  Nor could Limbaugh have been more explicit in his faith that if the rich be fed, the poor will be.  He claimed

So reading what the pope's written about this is really befuddling because he's totally wrong -- I mean, dramatically, embarrassingly, puzzlingly wrong.  Here's another excerpt.  "Pope Francis said that trickle-down policy..." We hear about trickle-down policies?  "Pope Francis said that trickle-down policies have not proven to work."

Oh, but they have.  It's exactly what Obama is trying to create, in fact, although he wouldn't dare call it that. When you hear Obama talking about job creation and people going to work and roads and bridges being -- what the hell is it but trickle-down?  The left has defined trickle-down as the rich are compassionate and give people things.  And when that doesn't happen, they say that trickle-down doesn't work.  The left has bastardized terms and definitions to the point that trickle-down's become a dirty word. 

Trickle-down is human nature!  Trickle-down is exactly what happens when you engage in economic activity.  You spend money and it trickles down to everybody you spend it with, and then it trickles down to everybody they end up interacting with economically.  Trickle-down is precisely what happens.  But the left has defined trickle-down as the rich are supposed to give the money that they don't need away to people. 

A lot of people might find the trickle-down gospel, alien to Jesus Christ, a little hard to believe.  PBS Newshour reports

American food banks that saw demand for emergency meals take off during the recession are working to meet yet another increase for 2014, following cuts to food stamps that took effect Nov. 1, 2013.

The $5 billion cuts in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program will affect 47.7 million people, one out of every seven Americans. A family of four will lose $36 a month in food assistance, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, dropping from $668 to $632 a month.

In New York City, with 63 percent of pantries and kitchens reporting shortages, the cuts will add stress to an already strained system, says Triada Stampas, a spokesperson for Food Bank for New York City. That food bank, the nation's largest, delivered 72 million meals last year. The organization calculates that across the five boroughs, SNAP cuts will mean that New Yorkers who get assistance will eat a total of 76 million fewer meals acquired with food stamps in the next year.

"We've been talking to private donors for months about these cuts," said Stampas. "But I want to dispel the notion that private charity can make up for the cuts, that's simply not possible. "

Bob Aiken, the CEO of Feeding America, a network of 200 food banks nationwide, said their branches are going to see more visitors as SNAP cuts shrink monthly food budgets.

Feeding America expects to deliver 3.3 billion meals in 2014, an increase from the 3.2 billion meals delivered in 2013 and the 2.2 billion meals delivered in 2009.

With a 46 percent increase in the number of people seeking meals after the recession hit -- from 25 million in 2006 to 37 million 2010 -- Feeding America has been struggling to keep up with demand.

"We are very concerned about the impact this cut will have on struggling low-income people and our network food banks," Aiken wrote in a statement in response to the SNAP cuts. "Unfortunately, our food banks across the nation continue to be stretched thin in their efforts to meet sustained high need in the wake of the recession."

Rush remarked  "The United States of America and its genuine exceptionalism has allowed people to reach the pinnacle of their ability combined with their ambition and desire." Apparently not.  But then it isn't surprising to hear this mindless boosterism from someone who can go on an extended rant (in transcript form, 51 paragraphs) about capitalism, poverty, the Roman Catholic Church, and poor people without mentioning this man:

 


                           

HAPPY THANKSGIVING.... especially to those who won't eat anything like this for another year.



Share |

Huckabee, Eyes Diverted



Mike Huckabee is not giving up.   After arguing the Newton, Ct. shooting spree ensued because "we've systematically removed God from our schools," Huckabee went back on Fox News Saturday and clarified

It's far more than just taking prayer or Bible reading out of the schools. It's that fact that people sue a city so we're not confronted with a manger scene or a Christmas carol, and lawsuits are filed to remove a cross that's a memorial to fallen soldiers. Churches and Christian-owned businesses are told to surrender their values under the edict of government orders to provide tax funded abortion pills. We carefully and intentionally stop saying things are 'sinful' and we call them 'disorders.' Sometimes we even say they are normal. And, to get to where we have to abandon bedrock moral truths, then we are asked, well 'where was God?' And I respond that, as I see it, we've escorted Him right out of our culture and we've marched Him off the public square and then we express our  surprise that a culture without Him actually reflects what it has become...

Riddle me this:  If we have "escorted Him right out of our culture," what has He been replaced with?

Of course, as Think Progress points out, there is no "government funded abortion pills," inasmuch as the Affordable Care Act does not provide abortifacients.  Further, the mandate in the ACA that health insurance companies provide birth control services without a co-pay reduces unwanted pregnancy and abortion, the latter outcome which, presumably, Mr. Huckabee would support.

But Huckabee's larger point is about the larger culture: God has been abandoned, aided and abetted by government.    So we'll play that game and concede, for argument's sake, that violence has wracked our nation because "bedrock moral truths" have been abandoned.   Earlier this year, The New York Times reported

In September 2005, a senior Wal-Mart lawyer received an alarming e-mail from a former executive at the company’s largest foreign subsidiary, Wal-Mart de Mexico. In the e-mail and follow-up conversations, the former executive described how Wal-Mart de Mexico had orchestrated a campaign of bribery to win market dominance. In its rush to build stores, he said, the company had paid bribes to obtain permits in virtually every corner of the country.

The former executive gave names, dates and bribe amounts. He knew so much, he explained, because for years he had been the lawyer in charge of obtaining construction permits for Wal-Mart de Mexico.

Wal-Mart dispatched investigators to Mexico City, and within days they unearthed evidence of widespread bribery. They found a paper trail of hundreds of suspect payments totaling more than $24 million. They also found documents showing that Wal-Mart de Mexico’s top executives not only knew about the payments, but had taken steps to conceal them from Wal-Mart’s headquarters in Bentonville, Ark. In a confidential report to his superiors, Wal-Mart’s lead investigator, a former F.B.I. special agent, summed up their initial findings this way: “There is reasonable suspicion to believe that Mexican and USA laws have been violated.”

The lead investigator recommended that Wal-Mart expand the investigation.

Instead, an examination by The New York Times found, Wal-Mart’s leaders shut it down.

Neither American nor Mexican law enforcement officials were notified. None of Wal-Mart de Mexico’s leaders were disciplined. Indeed, its chief executive, Eduardo Castro-Wright, identified by the former executive as the driving force behind years of bribery, was promoted to vice chairman of Wal-Mart in 2008. Until this article, the allegations and Wal-Mart’s investigation had never been publicly disclosed.

But The Times’s examination uncovered a prolonged struggle at the highest levels of Wal-Mart, a struggle that pitted the company’s much publicized commitment to the highest moral and ethical standards against its relentless pursuit of growth.

Under fire from labor critics, worried about press leaks and facing a sagging stock price, Wal-Mart’s leaders recognized that the allegations could have devastating consequences, documents and interviews show. 

Hint of bribery and obstruction of justice insufficient?   Wal-Mart has long been known for varied abuses, especially of employees.  Most recently

In the midst of worker strikes in several cities and the looming threat of a mass employee walkout on Black Friday (one of the busiest shopping days of the year), the world's largest retailer has been hit with a class action lawsuit affecting temporary workers in the Chicago area.

The filing accuses Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and two temporary staffing agencies in the region - Labor Ready Midwest Inc. and QPS Employment Group, Inc. -  of breaking minimum wage and overtime laws for temp workers by making them show up early and work through lunch breaks. The lawsuit also alleges that Walmart failed to pay contracted workers the requisite four hours minimum in wages.

But at least they have jobs (such as they are), some conservatives will protest.  Late in the recent presidential campaign, Mitt Romney was outraged- outraged! that Jeep "sold Chrysler to Italians who are going to build jeeps in China.  That was grossly misleading, as well as a subtle swipe at "Italians."  But in 2007 the Economic Policy Institute found

The world’s biggest retailer, U.S.-based Wal-Mart was responsible for $27 billion in U.S. imports from China in 2006 and 11% of the growth of the total U.S. trade deficit with China between 2001 and 2006. Wal-Mart’s trade deficit with China alone eliminated nearly 200,000 U.S. jobs in this period.

The manufacturing sector and its workers were hardest hit by the growth of Wal-Mart’s imports. Wal-Mart’s increased trade deficit with China eliminated 133,000 manufacturing jobs, 68% of those jobs lost from Wal-Mart’s imports. Jobs in the manufacturing sector pay higher wages and provide better benefits than most other industries, especially for workers with less than a college education.

China has achieved its rapidly growing trade surpluses by purchasing more than $1 trillion in U.S. Treasury bills and other government securities over the past few years in order to artificially and illegally reduce the value of its currency and thereby lower the cost of its exports to the United States and other countries. It has also repressed the labor rights of its workers and suppressed their wages, making its products artificially cheap and further subsidizing its exports. Wal-Mart has aided China’s abuse of labor rights and its violations of internally recognized norms of fair trade behavior by providing a vast and growing conduit for the distribution of artificially cheap and subsidized Chinese exports to the United States.

But this isn't a post about Wal-Mart, owned by a family with the combined wealth of fully 41.5% of the American people.   It already has been exposed as an emperor with no clothes. Instead, consider that once upon a time, presidential candidate Mike Huckabee was attacked by the corporate front Club for Growth and responded by labeling it the "Club for Greed."  That Mike Huckabee was not only more humane than the current one, but also sounded a lot less foolish.   That Mike Huckabee remembered

Do not lay up for yourselves measures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in and steal... No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other.  You cannot serve God and money.

If Mike Huckabee wants to target sin in a "culture without Him," he ought to address a corporate culture whose love of mammon is its top value, and which has expelled God with no help from government.




Share |

Declaring War On Christmas


It's not as stupid as it sounds, or reads.  After GOP TV's Neil Cavuto asks "You know, invariably, people ask after tragedies like this, "How could God let this happen?" Mike Huckabee responds:

Well, you know, it's an interesting thing. We ask why there is violence in our schools but we have systematically removed God from our schools. Should we be so surprised that schools would become a place of carnage? Because we've made it a place where we don't want to talk about eternity, life, what responsibility means, accountability -- that we're not just going to have be accountable to the police if they catch us, but one day we stand before, you know, a holy God in judgment. If we don't believe that, then we don't fear that. And so I sometimes, when people say, why did God let it happen. You know, God wasn't armed. He didn't go to the school. But God will be there in the form of a lot people with hugs and with therapy and a whole lot of ways in which I think he will be involved in the aftermath. Maybe we ought to let him in on the front end and we wouldn't have to call him to show up when it's all said and done at the back end.

Huckabee is not stupid, as could be assumed, perhaps, of a former governor of Arkansas.   But he is wrong.  It is hardly likely that schools have "become a place of carnage" when Engel v. Vitale, in which the Supreme Court ruled school-sponsored prayer unconstitutional, was decided in 1962.   It's fairly ridiculous to blame these horrific acts- invariably committed with firearms- on a removal of God from our schools 50 years ago, especially when their incidence is growing.   The degree to which subjecting a young student to a prayer written by a bureaucrat (aren't conservatives usually opposed to bureaucrats?) alters his behavior (and especially his psychological profile) is greatly debatable.

Huckabee isn't stupid.   He didn't, for instance, insist, as do some Christians, that God is always in control.  Rather, he noted "God wasn't armed. He didn't go to the school."

And he especially isn't stupid when he blames liberals and their public schools, who "have made it a place where we don't want to talk about eternity, life, what responsibility means."   As a conservative eager for his cultural views to be affirmed, he advocates discussion about eternity and life and responsibility, which presumably can take the place (in a limited school day) of science, math, and history.

But the problem with the culture which has veered so far from religious faith and a dependence on God does not lie with the public schools, Democrats, liberals, or even the public sector.

When Jesus Christ asserted "My house shall be a house of prayer’ but you have made it a den of robbers" (Luke 19:46, ESV), he didn't have the public school, or the civil authorities, or even the tax collectors in mind. Responsible, however, are not only the crass commercialization of big-box retailers (and the smaller retailers who must follow suit) with their admonishments, amid images of Santa and elves, to shop until we drop.

Sorry, Mike (and fellow conservatives):  it is the entire private sector.   Media Matters for America on Monday noted

Sean Hannity's radio show dabbled in the exact language that his Fox colleagues often criticize as central to the "war on Christmas" when an announcer wished his radio listeners: "Happy holidays from all of us at the Sean Hannity show." Fox News' annual trumped-up "war on Christmas" has largely depended on Fox figures taking offense when the word "holiday" replaces "Christmas" in seasonal greetings.

Nobody at GOP TV has so emphasized the "War on Christmas" as has Bill O'Reilly.   On Thursday, Media Matters found

Bill O'Reilly delivered an eight-minute monologue about the threat that "secular forces" pose to America -- using the nonexistent "war on Christmas" as an example - but Fox News punctuated the segment with an animation telling the audience "Happy Holidays" (image, below).  Fox News has repeatedly attacked people and organizations who use the word "holiday" instead of "Christmas," claiming that they are engaging in a "war on Christmas."

In November, Fox & Friends expressed outrage at the fact that Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee has used the term "holiday tree" rather than Christmas tree, only to air a segment minutes later about the show's "Holiday wish list."

Mike Huckabee isn't responsible for the hypocrisy at Fox News.   Surely he does know, however, that powerful economic forces are unashamedly profiting from the growing secularism in American society- a secularism the private sector itself has successfully fostered.

Share |

Not Even By Scripture


Everyone finds 4-year-old boys just so cute- especially when they're singing, and especially in church.    This video, from Apostolic Truth Tabernacle in Greensburg, Indiana via Crooks and Liars, may change your mind:





The boy sings "The Bible is right, somebody's wrong.    Romans 1 and 27, ain't no homo gonna make it to heaven."

That might be a bit harsh.... or perhaps viciously nasty.      David Badash of The New Civil Rights Movement, capturing the sentiments of most Americans, tweeted "They are teaching hate to an entire new generation. This makes more (sic) more sad than angry. I fear for these children's future."     One of his followers had a similar, common reaction, sarcastically remarking "another example of true christian love."

But the song not only reflects hostility; it is factually incorrect, even by its own standards.

The young fellow is no doubt referring to verse 27 of chapter 1 of the Romans, especially because there are only 16 chapters in Romans.   Chapter 1, verse 27 reads, according to the English Standard Version

and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

What would that "due penalty" be?    An evangelical (Zondervan) publisher argues "the 'gay' face is a thin veil for deep-seated frustration.    The folly of homosexuality is proclaimed in its inability to reproduce the human species in keeping with the divine commandment" as Zondervan interprets Genesis 1:28.    A "reformed" (overlapping, but not synonymous with,"evangelical") publisher, Ligonier Ministries,  remarks only "the harvest reaped is related to the crop sown" as inferred in Galations 6:7-8. (These verses appear related to general benevolence rather than sexual deviance.)

Paul, who wrote the Book of Romans, mentions neither heaven, hell, nor salvation in the context of homosexuality.   But he does, in that portion of the Bible itself, write

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.   For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, "The righteous shall live by faith."   (1:16-17) 

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it- the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe.     For there is no distinction, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.    (3:21-24)

For, being ignorant of the righteousness that comes from God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness.   For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.    (10:3-4)

... because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.    (10:9)

.... and on and on and on.      Put aside, for a few seconds,the mean words in the short song. Neither the state of homosexuality nor the sexual behavior that flows from it gives one a pass to hell according to the standards (Paul's words in Romans and elsewhere) of the Apostolic Truth Tabernacle itself.    Nor do the gospel authors, Jesus, or any authoritative New Testament figure maintain that being gay dooms one to eternal fire and damnation.

Paul, whose words are thought to be divinely inspired (and whom a few revisionists have claimed himself may have been gay) did disapprove of homosexuality.     But it is up to each individual to determine for himself/herself the veracity of the Bible.  And if a person cites Scripture as the ultimate authority, the latter shouldn't be grossly manipulated.     One suspects God would not be amused.



Share |

Popularity No Measure Of Righteousness

It isn't Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, or Rahm Emanuel. It isn't Markos Moulitsas, Andrew Sullivan, or the famous, largely nonexistent, "liberal media." It is Rush Limbaugh, in mocking Barack Obama, who frequently refers to the president as "the messiah."

And so it was on June 13 that Limbaugh remarked

People are losing faith in The Messiah, the first messiah that I'm aware of who has had less than 50% approval from the flock. Most messiahs get a hundred percent approval from the flock. This messiah is down below 50% now, which is not a good sign for his Second Coming in November.

Perhaps Rush was referring to his "dittoheads," who would never question their messiah. However, there was at least one messiah doubted by "the flock":

When many of his disciples heard it, they said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?" But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, "Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe." (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father."

After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him.

(John 6:60-66, English Standard Version)

Share|

Warped Arguments

Yellow Dog at theygaveusarepublic.com on 12/24 pretty clear summed up the conflict some of us face in viewing health care reform as it has become (_ _ _ not in original):

This is why I'm glad the Democrats have won - so far - on health care DEform, even though I still think the bill is a piece of s_ _ _ that will cost Democrats dearly in extra work, extra money, extra time and lots of lost votes.

This bill is making repugs rip out their own eyeballs in rage and despair, and for the moment that's a good enough outcome for me.

It's hard to argue with logic like that, especially when one of those Republicans, Oklahoma's Senator Tom Coburn, argued on December 24

If this bill becomes law, future generations will rue this day and I will do everything in my power to work toward its repeal. This bill will ration care, cut Medicare, increase premiums, fund abortion and bury our children in debt.

This process was not compromise. This process was corruption. This bill passed because votes were bought and sold using the issue of abortion as a bargaining chip. The abortion provision alone makes this bill the most arrogant piece of legislation I have seen in Congress. Only the most condescending politician can believe it is appropriate to force Americans to pay for other people's abortions and to coerce medical professional to take the lives of unborn children.

Senator Coburn, understandably did not- could not- say how the measure would "ration care" or "bury our children in debt." Given that the bill would not ration care and was fashioned to be at worst deficit-neutral, Coburn was wisely discreet. And of course he has been an advocate of extending the GWB tax cuts for the wealthy, which did its part in exploding the deficit.

Certainly Coburn is aware that abortion was used "as a bargaining chip" by the anti-choice Nebraska senator Ben Nelson, not by pro-choice proponents; and that the Senate bill (as does the House bill) further restricts, rather than expands, a woman's right to choose. Sure, gloating would be rude; but whining after a victory is so childish.

It's (sarcasm alert) heartwarming that Senator Coburn worries that the legislation will "cut Medicare." It would be a little more convincing, however, if he hadn't one sentence earlier claimed

Congress ignored the coming economic storm and impending bankruptcy of our entitlement programs....

Now what could one of the Senate's most conservative members have meant when he referred to the "impending bankruptcy of our entitlement programs?" Probably the same thing Rush Limbaugh, Concord Coalition founder Pete Peterson, and what Digby refers to as "the Village" (roughly, the Washington media-corporate-political establishment) mean.

The Social Security system, notwithstanding being robbed by successive congresses and presidents to fund the general debt, is sound. Medicare is endangered- but by increasing health care costs, which must be addressed by effective health care reform. The interests wringing their hands over "the impending bankruptcy of our entitlement programs," as Digby noted in late May, is trying

to break the generational bond between the young and old and are always looking for a good moment of impending crisis (or "opportunity" like a rising stock market) to put an end to the program. Whatever works.

As for Medicare --- there's no fixing it without health care. But they know that too --- which is one of the reasons they will block reform.

But the more intriguing portion of Coburn's speech contained the seemingly innocuous reference to Christmas, when he contended of Senate Democrats

Their hide the ball strategy led them to rush this process and ram the bill through on the eve of the most important Christian holiday when they hoped the American people wouldn't be watching.

In the long run, the GOP's original intent, to delay the vote until 7:00 p.m. Christmas Eve, is irrelevant. But what about "the most important Christian holiday?"

Perhaps the calendars are all wrong, it is March or April, and we've just celebrated Easter. Christmas may be "the most wonderful time of the year"- to many Christians and non-Christians- and the most important holiday to individual Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Orthodox Church members. But it simply is not the "most important" holiday in Christendom. The Spirit of the Reformation Study Bible explains the importance in Christendom of Jesus Christ's death and resurrection, the former the basis of Good Friday and the latter of Easter, both days obviously inextricably linked:

First, it (the resurrection) has been treated as the validation of Christian claims about the effectiveness of his atoning death. Jesus' resurrection demonstrated his victory over death (Ac 2:24, 1Co 15:54-57), vindicated him as righteous (Jn 16:10) and confirmed his divinity (Ro 1:4). This event therefore led to his ascension, enthronement (Ac 1:9-11; 2:33-34, Php 2:9-11; cf. Isa 53:10-12) and present heavenly reign. The reality of the resurrection guarantees believers; present forgiveness and justification (Ro 4:25; 1 Co 15:17; Heb 7:24-25), as well as their future hope of resurrection life when Christ returns (Jn 11:25-26; Ro 6; Eph 1:16-2:10; Col 2:9-15; 3:1-4).

Moreover, the apostle John (in 6:58) reportedly quoted Jesus as declaring to skeptics "I tell you the truth, before Abraham was born, I am!" (after which stones rained down on him). The birth of the human Jesus (notwithstanding to a virgin) approximately 30 years prior is very important to Christian belief but not as much so. The resurrection of Jesus Christ three days after his death by crucifixion is simply the central event of Christianity.

Feel free not to believe any of this. Most people around the world- including an awful lot of nominal Christians- do not. But they are the fundamental beliefs around which Christianity resolves, contrary to Senator Coburn's implication.

One could argue that Coburn is not even a Christian, but rather a member of a Christian cult- the Family, which combines an elitist allegiance to capitalist domination with its own brand of Christian theology. But that would be a violation of the Law of Parsimony. It is, after all, Christmas season; a time of good cheer, Santa Claus, and egg nog. And if Tom Coburn can combine the positive emotions of the season with the enduring Repub tactic of portraying Democrats as the godless, anti-Christian party, exploitation of the Christian faith is mere "gravy," an added bonus.

The New Testament, Perry Version

Michelle Bachmann, move over.

Competition may not be coming to private health insurance companies, but it has come to Michelle Bachmann.

The Minnesota congresswoman, famed for her repeated, ludicrous remarks, may have met her match in Texas Governor Rick Perry.

Perry appeared before a builders group in Dallas on December 16 and was asked (video below) of Al Gore's environmental activism: "Did you get religion? Did he get religion? What happened since then?" To approving laughter and applause, he responded

I certainly got religion. I think he's gone to hell.

The remark led MSNBC's Ed Schultz to note (video way below) "Using religion to take down Democrts just doesn't seem very Christ-like to me. In fact, it is in violation of the spirit of Christmas."

Truly, it doesn't sound like the fellow who on the Mount of Olives explained "The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me." But it may in fact be in the spirit of Christmas which, these days, is saturated with commercialism. And such remarks may qualify Perry, if he loses his bid for re-nomination against Kay Bailey Hutchison, to work on the Conservative Bible Project.

Consider the possibilities. Here are a few of the best-known quotes of Jesus Christ (all from English Standard Version), followed by the re-interpretation Governor Perry might give them:



Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever believes has eternal life. (John 6:47)

Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever denies climate change has eternal life.
______________________________________________________
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him may have eternal life. (John 3:13)

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must Rush Limbaugh be lifted up, that whomever believes in tax cuts may have eternal life.
_____________________________________________________


Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. (John 5:24)

Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears the NRA’s word and believes it has eternal life.
_____________________________________________________

For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. (John 3:16)

For God so loved the GOP that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in Ronald Reagan should not perish but have eternal life.


And in a less sarcastic vein: why would Rick Perry believe that one who believes in the reality of climate change necessarily go to hell? or that one who works in that field would necessarily go to hell? or who does anything Rick Perry doesn't like necessarily go to hell? or that Rick Perry would supplant his judgement of who is going to hell for that of the God he claims to believe in?

When The House Of Worship Isn't

The Courier-Journal of Louisville, Kentucky reports

A Valley Station Road church is sponsoring an "Open Carry Church Service" in late June, encouraging people to wear unloaded guns in their holsters, enter a raffle to win a free handgun, hear patriotic music and listen to talks by operators of gun stores and firing ranges.

Pastor Ken Pagano of New Bethel Church said the first-time event is "basically trying to think a little bit outside the box" to promote "responsible gun ownership and 2nd Amendment rights."

The event, slated for late Saturday afternoon, June 27, is being promoted with online posters, including one using a red font resembling splattered blood with the words: "Open Carry Church Service."

Now for a different perspective on the role of the church and its use as a building:

"And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all who sold and bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons. He said to them, 'It is written, My house shall be called a house of prayer, but you make it a den of robbers.'" (Matthew 21:12-13, ESV)

Obama The Heretic!

Yesterday was the National Day of Prayer and predictably, conservative Repubs blasted President Obama for not holding a public ceremony. Howevever, a low key event to commemorate the day has been the norm, with the vice chairman of the National Day of Prayer Task Force noting "there was no East Room event until George W." And apparently, there was only one event held on the National Day of Prayer in the White House in the administration of each of the two Repub presidents (RWR and GHWB) immediately preceding GWB.

But that didn't stop Repub activist and The View co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck from stating yesterday on Fox and Friends (transcript from thinkprogress.org, video from youtube):

This has been a tradition in our country in our country since 1952 with Truman. … I think that we are looking to him today to lead this country and this has been a huge tradition. It has also been one that has been protected in our country through our constitution. We should be able to gather and pray as we see fit.

And when Fox and Friends co-host Brian Kilmeade, referring to Obama, asked Hasselbeck "he hays that he likes to pray in private and do you have a responsibility to set an example" (i.e., by holding a public event, the guest responded "sure...." Clearly, Mrs. Hasselbeck was not denying that she, all Christians, Jews, Hindi, Buddhists, Muslims, and people of all faiths in this nation can pray as they wish in any house of worship, but instead advocating public prayer.

Elisabeth Hasselbeck, like many on the right, are aghast that President Obama prefers to pray in private instead of in public. So let's check in with what one authority said a couple of thousand years ago when he strongly implied that the motive of prayer (which he therein emphasized could be private) was far more important than the venue (from Matthew 5:6, New American Standard Bible):

And when you pray, you are not to be as the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners, in order to be seen by men. Truly I say to you they have their reward in full. But you, when you pray, go into your inner room, and when you have shut your dooor, pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees in secret will repay you.

666

It was absolutely a coincidence- not an omen (the movie or otherwise)- that the post immediately prior to this, called Of Obama And Jesus (Or Paglia), was my 666th. And being neither superstitious nor in league with the devil, the post will stand on its own merits, whatever they may be.

Of Obama And Jesus (Or Paglia)

He says it's only custom: “I think the tradition is that they use all three names, and I will follow the tradition, not trying to make a statement one way or the other. I'll do what everybody else does.” Barack Obama said that he will take the oath of office as "Barack Hussein Obama," which would be consistent with the choice of the gentlemen F. Roosevelt, Kennedy, and the last three presidents, each of whom used his middle name. However, as Mike Allen of Politico has noted, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Gerald R. Ford, and Harry S. Truman (who famously had no middle name other than "S") took the oath using their middle name; James Earl Carter as "Jimmy Carter;" Ronald Wilson Reagan as "Ronald Reagan." (Lyndon Johnson, aboard Air Force One, went nameless.)

Whatever Mr. Obama's real motive, it is courageous. MSNBC liked citing the statistic that 13% of the American electorate, wary of someone named "Hussein," thought that Barack Obama is a Muslim, which at least one right-wing pundit tried to exploit. Fleeing from use of his middle name at such an extremely high-profile occasion as the inauguration would have been slightly cowardly; invoking it is decidedly bold.

But there is something else, in another (though still peripherally political) vein, that bears no resemblance to boldness, courage, or intellectual honesty. Camille Paglia in Salon expressed this comforting but factually unsupportable belief when she wrote:

Furthermore, as a literary critic, I hear a very distinct speaking voice in the sayings attributed to Jesus. This was a brilliant poet who was able to find simple, universal metaphors (a coin, a tree, a mustard seed) to convey spiritual truths to the masses. He was also a performing artist with startling improvisational gifts. Whether or not he himself thought he was the Messiah is unclear.

Here is the guy whom Ms. Paglia is not willing to concede believed he was the Messiah, maintaining even his divinity (all quotations from the John's Gospel, English Standard Version):

"I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I wil give for the life of the world is my flesh." (6:51)

"Yet even if I do judge, my judgment is true, for it is not I alone who judge, but I and the Father who sent me....I am the one who bears witness aoout myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me." (8:16,18)

So Jesus said to them, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he and I do nothing on my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me." (8:28)

Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." (8:58)

"I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he wil be saved and will go in and out and find pasture...." (10:9)

Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (14:6)

"I am the true vine, and my Father is the vinedresser." (15:1)

Now, it's possible to claim that the Bible is malarkey- but how then would Ms. Paglia conclude Jesus "was a brilliant poet who was able to find simple, universal metaphors" and "a performing artist with startling improvisational gifts" (meaning, presumably, several miracles, a neat trick for a mere mortal)? No, as lovely a thought it is that Jesus Christ was a great person like Mahatma Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Jr., or Mother Teresa, the valid options are far more discomfiting, as C.S. Lewis explained in 1952's "Mere Christianity":

A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic--on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg--or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was and is the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon; or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us.

Another Thought on Obama/Wright

Sometimes I read a blog posting and know there is something I like about it but can't quite focus on what it is. And so it was that this evening I happened to reread an item posted by the usually insightful and always objective Joan Walsh on the salon.com site. Though generally, and in this case, reasonably favorable to Barack Obama, Walsh on June 1 noted:

But Obama's decision to leave his church of 20 years just two months after his Philadelphia speech on race, in which he said he wouldn't, was a little confusing. Has Trinity changed? Obama doesn't say that. Either he attended the church for 20 years and knew that gratuitous anti-white rhetoric was accepted there, and didn't care until he was running for president, or his church affiliation was mainly a political one and he wasn't paying much attention.

Barack Obama throughout his campaign has touted his commitment to Jesus Christ. Either he was in church enough to know what Jeremiah Wright was all about, or he wasn't there, in which case his personal relationship with his Savior did not extend to making an effort on Sunday mornings.

Pundits have self-righteously opined for several years that the Democratic Party must begin to express the language of faith. Barack Obama already has found that this approach is fraught with its own perils.

A New Slogan For The Right

Some things are so ironic that they are hard to believe. The conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation, has been running a contest entitled "What Would Reagan Do?" It is being promoted by syndicated conservative Repub talk-show hosts Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham who, like their right-wing brethren, have been fond of blaming liberals/Democrats for allegedly trying to evict religion from the public square.

"What Would Reagan Do?" sounds an awful lot like "What Would Jesus Do?" a motto popular among Christians who believe that Jesus Christ was in essence God and therefore without sin. So the righteous right simply substitutes Reagan for Jesus as they imply Reagan and Jesus really were the same.

Such a curious, and disturbing, argument advanced by stalwarts of the Republican Party.