Who's Scared of Smart Women?

One News Now reports on The World Family Conference IV in Warsaw:

Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary president Paige Patterson says families need to be concerned that in America, 60% of college students are female. He predicts that in a few years, men will be increasingly underrepresented among "the intelligentsia" and will gradually cede leadership in many areas to women.

Patterson laments that most of the women ascending to these new roles will maintain a major focus on a career, not on the family and on children.

"Instead of encouraging adolescents to cut the apron strings of mother and venture out into society, we are begging mothers not to cut the apron strings [to] their babies and catapult them prematurely into a menacing world," said the two-time president of the Southern Baptist Convention. "Mom and hot apple pie have been replaced by institutional daycare centers and cold apple turnovers at McDonald's."

Maybe I'm crazy, but if women make up (roughly) 50% of the population, shouldn't they hold (roughly) 50% of the leadership positions? And if having women accurately represented in 'the intelligentsia' is ceding "leadership in many areas to women," let me tell you that your priorities are pretty screwed up.

It amazes me that in 2007 some people still think women are somehow inferior.

Paige Patterson Feminism Antifeminism

Back to My Roots

In its early days, 300 Dollar Wonder was built around pointing out the idiocy of Pat Robertson. I drifted away from Pat as the months went by and by the time the Midterm elections came around, I had abandoned the Crazy Reverend completely. Here in the new year, a new Robertson story left me feeling nostalgic.

From the AP:

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. - In what has become an annual tradition of prognostications, religious broadcaster Pat Robertson predicted Tuesday that a terrorist attack on the United States would result in "mass killing" late in 2007.

"I'm not necessarily saying it's going to be nuclear," he said during his news-and-talk television show "The 700 Club" on the Christian Broadcasting Network. "The Lord didn't say nuclear. But I do believe it will be something like that."

Robertson said God told him during a recent prayer retreat that major cities and possibly millions of people will be affected by the attack, which should take place sometime after September.

Let's recap: From that little story we've learned that not only does Pat Robertson talk to God, when God answers him, Pat is willing to second guess God if he thinks throwing the word 'nuclear' into the sentence will increase his ratings. Also, Pat knows to make his predictions far enough in the future that people will forget about his predictions if they don't come true right away and vague enough that he can pull shit like this:

"I have a relatively good track record," [Robertson] said. "Sometimes I miss."

In May, Robertson said God told him that storms and possibly a tsunami were to crash into America's coastline in 2006. Even though the U.S. was not hit with a tsunami, Robertson on Tuesday cited last spring's heavy rains and flooding in New England as partly fulfilling the prediction.

Yeah, flooding in New England is a lot like a tsunami, Pat.

Though Robertson said that America's 'feigned' friendship with Israel was driving that nation to "national suicide," he made no mention of God striking down George W. Bush in the same way he struck down Ariel Sharon for failing to protect the geographical integrity of Israel.

I guess Pat knows not to bite the hand that ensures his tax breaks either...

Pat Robertson Predictions Christianists

No Wonder We're Not Winning

"Stability in Iraq ultimately depends on spreading the message of Jesus Christ, the message of peace on earth, good will towards men. Everything depends on everyone learning about the birth of the Savior."

- Rep. Robin Hayes (R-NC)

That lovely little bit of mind killing drivel brought to your attention via BlueNC.

Robin Hayes Jesus Christ Christianists War in Iraq

Abstinence Only is a Crock of Sh!t

From CNN:

Reality check: 95 percent of Americans had premarital sex

NEW YORK (AP) -- More than nine out of 10 Americans, men and women alike, have had premarital sex, according to a new study. The high rates extend even to women born in the 1940s, challenging perceptions that people were more chaste in the past.

"This is reality-check research," said the study's author, Lawrence Finer. "Premarital sex is normal behavior for the vast majority of Americans, and has been for decades."

Yikes. That really deflates the whole 'Silver Ring Thing' crowd's argument.

The study, examining how sexual behavior before marriage has changed over time, was based on interviews conducted with more than 38,000 people -- about 33,000 of them women -- in 1982, 1988, 1995 and 2002 for the federal National Survey of Family Growth. According to Finer's analysis, 99 percent of the respondents had had sex by age 44, and 95 percent had done so before marriage.

Even among a subgroup of those who abstained from sex until at least age 20, four-fifths had had premarital sex by age 44, the study found.

Finer said the likelihood of Americans having sex before marriage has remained stable since the 1950s, though people now wait longer to get married and thus are sexually active as singles for extensive periods.

How does the right-wing, anti-sex crowd react to numbers like that? Just say that the number seemed, according to Janice Crouse of Concerned Women for America "a little suspicious." Remember, in Conservo-World, a gut feeling that reinforces a pre-held belief is far more credible than a survey conducted regularly over nearly a quarter of a century interviewing 38,000 people.

"The data clearly show[s] that the majority of older teens and adults have already had sex before marriage, which calls into question the federal government's funding of abstinence-only-until-marriage programs for 12- to 29-year-olds," [Lawrence] Finer, [the research director at the Guttmacher Institute] said.

Under the Bush administration, such programs have received hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding.

"It would be more effective," Finer said, "to provide young people with the skills and information they need to be safe once they become sexually active -- which nearly everyone eventually will."

The study even showed that this level of premarital sex wasn't a 'generational thing' or caused by 'sexuality in the media.' The incidence of premarital sex among people born in the 1940s was only 7% lower (88%) than it is today (95%).

If 'Evangelicals' (read: Christianists) make up 20-30% of the U.S. population (and 100% of people that still think George W. Bush is doing a good job) and 95% of the population has had sex before marriage, that means that way more than half of self identified 'Evangelicals' were shacking up before they said "I do."

So even though Bush's core supporters can't live up to 'Abstinence Only,' he still spends hundreds of millions in tax dollars preaching it to a population which has, for the past 60 years, shown the ability to have sex before marriage without turning into sex-crazed delinquents.

It's almost like parents want to pass laws codifying morality so that their kids wouldn't do exactly the same thing they did... This would be funny if it weren't so incredibly frightening.

Sex Before Marriage Abstinence+Only Lawrence Finer

Vote Jesus for King!

From the AP:

Poland proposal would name Jesus king

WARSAW, Poland - Lawmakers have drawn up a resolution naming Jesus Christ as the honorary king of Poland, but have failed to win support from the country's powerful Roman Catholic church.

Lawmakers for the ruling Law and Justice party and League of Polish Families as well as the opposition Peasants Party back the resolution, said Szymon Ruman, spokesman for parliamentary speaker Marek Jurek.

How many Christianists read that and said "that sounds like a good idea?"

What has the Catholic Church in Poland said about the proposed Christian Dominionist wet dream?

"Let parliament deal with passing better laws that we need," Gdansk Archbishop Tadeusz Goclowski said.

"This kind of action, although it may stem from good will, sounds a bit like propaganda," said bishop Tadeusz Pieronk.

How much better off would we be if our religious leaders were as willing to keep their noses out of government.

Poland Jesus King

Citation du Jour

"I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States."

- Rep. Virgil Goode (R-VA) in a letter to constituents.

The problem with writing bat-shit crazy things in letters to constituents is that one of those letters may inadvertently end up on the possession of someone who will send it to a newspaper.

Think Progress has more from the letter:

I do not subscribe to using the Koran in any way. The Muslim Representative from Minnesota was elected by the voters of that district and if American citizens don’t wake up and adopt the Virgil Goode position on immigration there will likely be many more Muslims elected to office and demanding the use of the Koran.

You wouldn't even use it to keep your sofa level? That's what I'm doing with the NRSV...

The Ten Commandments and "In God We Trust" are on the wall in my office. A Muslim student came by the office and asked why I did not have anything on my wall about the Koran. My response was clear, "As long as I have the honor of representing the citizens of the 5th District of Virginia in the United States House of Representatives, The Koran is not going to be on the wall of my office."

Virgil Goode (if that name doesn't scream 'Antebellum South' I don't know what does) seems to be concerned that there will be more Muslims in America in the coming century. First, I'm more concerned that the number of Christianists will be higher in the coming century. Second, Rep. Goode is 60 years old. I'm less than half of his age. My opinion about what's happening in the coming century means a hell of a lot more than his because I'm gonna be alive for most of it.

Bigotry, hatred, and intolerance - alive and well in the U.S.A.

Talking Points Memo has an image of the letter here.

Virgil Goode Bigotry Muslims

Why Did This Take Months?

The AP:

Ga. board: Harry Potter books can stay
By GREG BLUESTEIN, Associated Press Writer

ATLANTA - The Georgia Board of Education voted Thursday to uphold a local school board's decision to leave
Harry Potter books on library shelves despite a mother's objections.

The board members voted without discussion to back the Gwinnett County school board's decision to deny Laura Mallory's request to remove the best-selling books.

Well, that would seem to resolve that. Except that Ms. Mallory has a habit of not giving up when an authoritative body rules against her...

Mallory, who has three children in elementary school, has worked for more than a year to ban the books from Gwinnett schools, claiming the popular fiction series is an attempt to indoctrinate children in witchcraft.

"It's mainstreaming witchcraft in a subtle and deceptive manner, in a children-friendly format," said Mallory, who is considering a legal challenge of the board's ruling. [I called it!] "The kind of stuff in these books — murder and greed and violence. Why do they have to read them in school?"

Gwinnett school officials have argued that the books are good tools to encourage children to read and to spark creativity and imagination. Banning all books with references to witchcraft would mean classics like "MacBeth" and "Cinderella" would have to go, they said.

I really wish that these Anti-Potter zealots would stop lying. It's not about "murder, greed, and violence." That would mean that reading the Old Testament would be out of the question. (And then how would people know to hate gay people?)

This is about the fact that this is about a 'wizard' in a contemporary setting - something that a science-deprived mind thinks might just be true... with the power of Satan!

Idiots. I hope this is the last I hear of this for a while...

Laura Mallory Harry Potter Georgia Christianists

Protecting Democracy before Promoting Faith

Daniel C. Dennett (left) may look like Santa Clause but he's actually the Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Philosophy, and Co-Director of the Center for Cognitive Studies, at Tufts University. He wrote Breaking the Spell. He brings an Atheist's perspective to the Washington Post's regular "On Faith" section. He takes on this question in today's paper:

Some politically conservative Christians say that America is "a Christian nation," and at this time of year, with the country saturated with Christmas imagery, it can seem that they are right. Are they? Is America a "Christian nation"? Should it be?

His answer is very good. Some excerpts:

[T]he Christian conservatives in the country who wish to declare that this is a Christian nation are becoming bolder and bolder in their willingness to impose their own viewpoint on those who disagree. Fortunately, there are the beginnings of an organized Resistance to this takeover, such as the Interfaith Alliance, chaired by Walter Cronkite. I enthusiastically support this effort, even though I am myself an atheist. Atheism is one of the live rails of American politics-touch it and you're toast. Fair enough. Those are the current facts of life. Not so long ago, you couldn’t be elected if you were Catholic, or Jewish, or African-American. But shouldn't we install another live rail, on the opposite side of the religious spectrum?

It ought to be just as much a fact of life that anybody who declares that their allegiance to their religion comes before their allegiance to democracy is simply unelectable. Fifty years ago President Eisenhower nominated Charles E. Wilson, then president of General Motors, as his Secretary of Defense. At the nomination hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Wilson was asked to sell his shares in General Motors, but he objected. When asked if his continued stake in General Motors mightn't unduly sway his judgment, he replied: "For years, I thought what was good for the country was good for General Motors and vice versa." Some in the press, unsatisfied with this response, stressed only the second half of his response--"What's good for General Motors is good for the country"-and in response to the ensuing furor, Wilson was forced to sell his stock in order to win the nomination.

Substitute "The American Baptist Church" or "The Roman Catholic Church" for "General Motors" and ask yourself whether you want candidates who waffle on this score to lead the nation. Even if it is true, as Wilson opined, that other things being equal, what's good for GM is good for the country, people wanted to know which way he'd lean in the perhaps rare cases where he had to choose between what was good for the country and what was good for his corporation. They wanted him to put General Motors firmly in second place, and we want our politicians to put the welfare of the nation ahead of the welfare of their religion as well. If they won't make a solemn pledge about this, we should worry.

Dr. Dennet concludes his response with this powerful statement:

We are currently asking the Shiites and Sunnis of Iraq to put their allegiance to their nation ahead of their allegiance to their religion. We must surely ask ourselves, and especially our political leaders, to make the same solemn commitment.

Once more, we see Christian Privilege. Our leaders are prepared to govern by their religion, legislate their beliefs, and mandate their particular morals, rules, and guide lines - yet turn around and demand that non-Christian efforts to do exactly the same thing be abandoned in favor of a secular, unity government.

Dr. Dennet asks a simple question and draws very clear conclusions from a response.

"Do [you] put the welfare of the nation above the welfare of [your] particular religion? If you cannot answer Yes to that question, you should consider that you are not a good American, but a part of the problem: you are taking advantage of American religious freedom without being prepared to pledge your support to the principle that secures it."

Other panelists seem unwilling to draw a hard line about America's status as a 'Christian Nation.'

Some clearly state that they mean to ignore "whether a nation can (or should) be Christian." Instead they outline divides among American Christians and seek to redirect the question into something more like 'What kind of Christians make up America?'

Another panelist simply try to keep everybody happy by declaring that America isn't a 'Christian Nation' but a great nation because there are so many Christians in it.

The question is further avoided by panelists who play with the difference between 'nation' and government and call for a "society in which religiously informed viewpoints are welcomed in the public square on an equal basis with all other voices." One assumes that teaching children in public schools that the world in 6,000 years old, that Dinosaurs and humans roamed the earth together and/or that the world is flat would be some of the 'viewpoints' given equal basis as, say, Science.

Calling for any politician that wouldn't put the Constitution above her or his religious beliefs to be "unelectable" same way that Atheists are now and African Americans used to be (in places still are) shows a great deal of moral courage. It is a call that is both necessary and unpopular.

That's why I'm sure it will be ignored.

Daniel Dennett Christian Nation Christianists

Harry Potter vs. Christian Privilege

I've mentioned a few times that a certain Ms. Mallory (right) is seeking to have all Harry Potter books removed from Georgia Public School Libraries.

More news has come in. From the International Herald Tribune:

ATLANTA: The state Board of Education will decide Wednesday whether to keep Harry Potter books on library shelves in one suburban Atlanta school district, and the matter will be discussed in public rather than behind closed doors as previously planned.

The board will consider an appeal by parent Laura Mallory who is upset that the Gwinnett County school board voted to keep the best-selling books in its schools, despite her claims that the books indoctrinate children in pagan religion.

It turns out that the board isn't reviewing Gwinnett County's decision, just whether it acted within its authority when making that decision.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution:

State board members are not deciding whether J.K. Rowling's series of children's books about a powerful boy wizard are appropriate material for public schools. Instead, they are deciding the technical matter of whether Gwinnett acted within its authority when a parent challenged their use.

[...]

Earlier today, state board members gave tacit approval to the decision by the administrative law judge that Gwinnett had acted within its authority. The board is expected to take a formal vote Thursday.

It appears that cooler heads (or rather rational ones) are poised to prevail.

As Shakespeare's Sister points out, it's important to remember why Ms. Mallory is objecting to the wildly popular series by J.K. Rowling:

"There are so many problems facing our children today — drugs, alcohol, violence and the growth of the occult, too. These books are helping to mainstream witchcraft. These books are dangerous and harmful to our children. I am a Christian. I feel that Christian rights are being abolished in this country. Everyone talks about our views being pushed on them. But what about our beliefs? Don't we have any rights at all?" [Bolds mine.]

No, Ms. Mallory, you're wrong. Christian rights aren't being abolished - just Christian privilege.

People like Ms. Mallory have allowed themselves to slip into thinking that the advantages that they've enjoyed for so long as Christians aren't just a perk of being the majority - they think that these privileges are are right.

The 'Culture Wars' aren't really a 'war' so much as a rear-guard action by a fading majority. Ten Commandments on a court house? 50 years ago it just wasn't an issue. Sure, it was still wrong then, but the monument wasn't put up because Christians had a right to put it on Federal property, it just happened because there weren't enough (or rather powerful enough) non-Christian organizations to prevent it.

For a very long time, if something wasn't in keeping with Christian principles, it wasn't in keeping with the principles of the vast majority of Americans. While Christians are still the majority in this nation, they are loosing ground. As there is more religious diversity in America and as more people realize that - even if it's their personal religion - Christianity isn't the only religion in America there is less and less support for Christian Privilege.

One cannot expect every member of a population that enjoys special privileges to abandon them simply because it is the right thing to do. One can hope that there are enough fair minded Christians in America to realize that Christian Privilege isn't in keeping with our American ideals.

Harry Potter Laura Mallory Georgia Christianists

Photo: John Amis / AP

Making the Christianists Scream

From the Washington Post:

RENO, Nev. -- The widow of a soldier killed in Afghanistan saw a Wiccan symbol placed on a memorial plaque for her husband Saturday, after fighting the federal government for more than a year over the emblem.

Roberta Stewart, widow of Sgt. Patrick Stewart, and Wiccan leaders said it was the first government-issued memorial plaque with a Wiccan pentacle, a five-pointed star enclosed in a circle.

More than 50 friends and family dedicated the plaque at Northern Nevada Veterans Memorial Cemetery in Fernley, Nev., about 45 miles east of Reno.

I DO NOT wish to do any disrespect to Sgt. Stewart. His sacrifice and the suffering of his friends and family should in no way be seen as something 'good' because it produced an outcome I like. To any person that knew Patrick Stewart, I'm pleased only that the memorial that your loved one deserved is the one that he got. I'm pleased that meddling Christianists were unable to prevent a man who has earned so much more than this small mark of respect have been unable to prevent the fulfilling of his wishes.

The list of 'approved symbols' includes about 20 variations of the Christian Cross, "the Jewish Star of David, the Muslim crescent, the Buddhist wheel, the Mormon angel, the nine-pointed star of Bahai and an atomic whirl for atheists are also permitted" but until now, the pentacle was not among the 'approved' symbols.

V.A. Officials are in the process of re-writing the rules. Let's see how the Christianists behave during the 'public comment period' that is required.

More Attempted Book Bannings (Yawn)

From WISC-TV:

FOND DU LAC, Wis. -- Maya Angelou autobiography is causing concern at Fond du Lac High School, where some parents want the book banned.

Sophomores in advanced English classes read "I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings." Some passages describe Angelou's rape and unwanted pregnancy.

School Superintendent Gregory Maass said one set of parents objected to the book, so the school assigned their student an alternative book.

Maass said they weren't satisfied and want the book removed from the curriculum entirely.

I'm really tired of writing these posts. It's like watching re-runs of 'Full House.' The same plot, over and over. By the 22nd minute, the 'everybody's learned their lesson' music comes on, somebody gets a hug, forgiveness is given, and the bliss that only TV sit-com families enjoy once again reigns supreme.

The Christianist version is, of course, parent objects to book, teacher supplies alternative, fundie parent rejects the alternative, demanding all the kids education be sacrificed to satisfy one parent's desire that their child not be exposed to 'dangerous' ideas.

"I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings" has been taught in the school in question for over a decade and was taught in my highschool without incident. When the Fond du Lac principal held a meeting some 80 people showed up, though no decision was made as to what to do about the situation.

Why? Because the only thing that needs to be done is that the over-protective parents meddling in the education of kids who aren't their own need to be told to stuff it and accept the fact that their kid has already been given an alternate text. More likely, the school board caves and a bunch of kids are denied another part of the education they deserve.

No wonder the United States ranks 19th out of 24 when it comes to education...

Fond du Lac Maya Angelou I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings Ban

Have I really become this cynical? I'm yawning at book bannings? I thought I'd come back from my long Thanksgiving vacation refreshed. I guess not...

The Problem with Leviticus

Shakes Sis has a great take on this article. (Go read it.) I'm going to concentrate on a different part of the piece, so hopefully she won't accuse me of post-stealing. From the USA Today:

What if Christian leaders are wrong about homosexuality?

[...]

Religion's only real commodity, after all, is its moral authority. Lose that, and we lose our credibility. Lose credibility, and we might as well close up shop.

[...]

So, why are so many church leaders (not to mention Orthodox Jewish and Muslim leaders) persisting in their view that homosexuality is wrong despite a growing stream of scientific evidence that is likely to become a torrent in the coming years? The answer is found in Leviticus 18. "You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination."

As a former "the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it" kind of guy, I am sympathetic with any Christian who accepts the Bible at face value. But here's the catch. Leviticus is filled with laws imposing the death penalty for everything from eating catfish to sassing your parents. If you accept one as the absolute, unequivocal word of God, you must accept them all.

For many of gay America's loudest critics, the results are unthinkable. First, no more football. At least not without gloves. Handling a pig skin is an abomination. Second, no more Saturday games even if you can get a new ball. Violating the Sabbath is a capital offense according to Leviticus. For the over-40 crowd, approaching the altar of God with a defect in your sight is taboo, but you'll have plenty of company because those menstruating or with disabilities are also barred.

The truth is that mainstream religion has moved beyond animal sacrifice, slavery and the host of primitive rituals described in Leviticus centuries ago. Selectively hanging onto these ancient proscriptions for gays and lesbians exclusively is unfair according to anybody's standard of ethics. We lawyers call it "selective enforcement," and in civil affairs it's illegal.

I have this sort of twisted fantasy where I impersonate a preacher. I arrive at some megachurch as a 'guest pastor' to deliver the sermon. The bulletin declares today 'Bible Believer's Day' and promises an exciting sermon that will have the congregation participating in ways they never have before.

"Good morning! As you may have read, today Biblical Inerrancy Day. I'd like to invite anybody who's gay to leave."

(The Congregation is shocked. Nobody leaves.)

"I'd also like anybody who's eaten shrimp, lobster, or catfish in the last week to please go to the narthex, where coffee and donuts are being served."

(Again, nobody leaves.)

Surely somebody here has had shrimp this week! On a salad, perhaps? At TGI Fridays? I'm very serious. According to Leviticus 11:12, to eat anything from the sea without fins or scales is sinful in the eyes of God. Please leave.

(At this point, a few people leave.)

Excellent. We're beginning our journey towards a Church that fully adheres to the Inerrant Word of God. Anybody who wears contact lenses or glasses, could you please remove yourselves from the sanctuary.

In addition, any women that are menstruating, any person that has both onions and potatoes planted in their garden, and anybody wearing a cotton/poly blend should leave now too.

Anybody who mowed their lawn Saturday or had a ham and cheese sandwich should leave...

You get the picture.

Oliver "Buzz" Thomas, the author of the article, calls attention to one of the things that has always bothered me about using Leviticus to argue against providing gay people with human rights. There are so many other parts of Leviticus that even the most Christian of people ignore.

Either you believe that everything in the Bible is completely and perfectly true (and you don't eat shrimp or mow your lawn on Saturdays) or you believe that it isn't. There is no half-way. You can't have it both ways.

This makes people uncomfortable. It exposes the fact that they're using scripture to discriminate against people they hate. At best, it's a 'biblical shield' to protect them from something that they think is 'icky.'

Oliver Thomas notes that Jesus' teachings are vastly different from what many Christianists preach. When I was growing up, the minister at my church was fond of saying 'The Devil can quote scripture for his own ends.'

We don't write laws against people that commit adultery. We don't enact legislation against people that work on the Sabbath. There is no statute on the books punishing a person from coveting his neighbor's wife or her neighbor's husband. Usury, gambling, pre-marital sex, swearing, and worshipping god's other than that of Christians are all protected or codified by law in one way or another.

This hypocrisy isn't lost on people. While Christianists loudly proclaim that America is a Christian Nation, the number of non-Christians is quietly growing. Between 1990 and 2001 the percentage of Americans that self-identify as Christian fell from 86.2% to 76.5%. At that rate, by 2042, non-Christians will outnumber Christians in the United States.

There are more Americans who say they are not affiliated with any organized religion than there are Episcopalians, Methodists, and Lutherans taken together.

Mr. Thomas tells us this:

Religion's only real commodity, after all, is its moral authority. Lose that, and we lose our credibility. Lose credibility, and we might as well close up shop.

It's happened to Christianity before, most famously when we dug in our heels over Galileo's challenge to the biblical view that the Earth, rather than the sun, was at the center of our solar system. You know the story. Galileo was persecuted for what turned out to be incontrovertibly true. For many, especially in the scientific community, Christianity never recovered.

My take: If Christians are reduced to 'the anti-gay people' in the eyes of the public, America will look like Europe by the beginning of the next century.

Homosexuality Leviticus Christianity Religion

Problems for Romney

A Rasmussen Reports survey has found that 43% of Americans would never vote for a Mormon. From the Salt Lake Tribune:

WASHINGTON - Some 43 percent of Americans wouldn't even consider voting for a Mormon for president, according to a new poll that shows an increase from previous surveys in the number of voters unwilling to support an LDS candidate for the White House.

The latest poll, released Monday, is bad news for Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a Mormon Republican who is expected to make a 2008 presidential bid. Previous polls have shown a smaller share of Americans saying they would not vote for a Mormon presidential candidate.

The Los Angeles Times and Bloomberg in June found 37 percent of those surveyed wouldn't vote for a Mormon while other surveys from the late 1990s showed about 20 percent were opposed to a candidate from that faith.

Some 38 percent in the Rasmussen poll said they would consider voting for a Mormon, while 19 percent were unsure. Of those who identified themselves as evangelicals, 53 percent said they wouldn't consider voting for a Mormon candidate.

It's interesting that the only sub-group that is mentioned is Evangelicals. It would be interesting to see breakdowns by party affiliation, race, income, education, and region. Of course 'Evangelical' is code for 'White, socially conservative Republican' - of which only 53% would vote for a Mormon. This must scare the shit out of Romney. If this bias against people that have different ideas about God can't be overcome quickly (with either speeches, TV spots, or appropriately timed attacks on Gays) Romney's candidacy is dead in the water.

Romney has the deck stacked against him. He's running for the nomination of a party with its powerbase in the South and West when he's from the North East. This poll shows that he's looking to attract voters that are hostile to his religion. He has low name recognition and, as far as I've seen, no 'proto-platform.' He's not the 'immigration candidate' or the 'Iraq candidate' or the 'trade candidate' or the 'tax candidate' or any other 'candidate' except the 'Mormon candidate' and his base has basically rejected that.

For what it's worth, I would have no problem voting for a Mormon. I just can't imagine voting for Mitt Romney.

Here's the other part of Rasmussen's survey that I found interesting:

A potential Mormon presidential candidate fared better than one who is Muslim or an atheist running for the White House, the Rasmussen poll also found.

Some 61 percent of likely voters would not even consider voting for a Muslim presidential contender while 60 percent wouldn't vote for an atheist, the poll found.

I always knew I was unelectable... Atheism is the new gay...

Mitt Romney Mormon Religion+in+Politics Atheism

Toys for Pinko-Athiest-Liberal-America Haters

Why do the U.S. Marines hate baby Jesus?

LOS ANGELES - A talking Jesus doll has been turned down by the Marine Reserves' Toys for Tots program.

A suburban Los Angeles company offered to donate 4,000 of the foot-tall dolls, which quote Bible verses, for distribution to needy children this holiday season. The battery-powered Jesus is one of several dolls manufactured by one2believe, a division of the Valencia-based Beverly Hills Teddy Bear Co., based on Biblical figures.

But the charity balked because of the dolls' religious nature.

Toys are donated to kids based on financial need and "we don't know anything about their background, their religious affiliations," said Bill Grein, vice president of Marine Toys for Tots Foundation, in Quantico, Va.

As a government entity, Marines "don't profess one religion over another," Grein said Tuesday. "We can't take a chance on sending a talking Jesus doll to a Jewish family or a Muslim family."

I want to take this opportunity to congratulate Toys for Tots and the U.S. Marines for doing exactly what they should do. This is about simple decency and having respect for people of different religious persuasions.

The fact that some religious fundamentalists want to turn an effort to make the lives of some underprivileged children better into a political stand-off is disgusting. The fact that Toys for Tots is already engaging in what can easily be seen as something in keeping with Christian principles isn't enough for them. It has to be about pushing their agenda. They couldn't just give a teddy bear, they had to donate Bible-verse repeating, battery-powered Jesuses. (Jesi?)

I've been very lucky to always have something to open on Christmas morning and a loving family to share it with. I'm also lucky to have parents who taught me that it's important to help those less fortunate. More importantly, they showed me that it's important to give freely. If you've decided on a charity, don't claim the tax deduction. If you're working at a church soup kitchen, don't preach. If you want to go build houses for Habitat for Humanity, do it because it's the right thing to do, not because it looks good on college applications.

I don't mind Beverly Hills Teddy Bear Company producing a Jesus doll (though it's kinda creepy and definitely a little bit idolatrous) but out of their entire inventory, couldn't they have found something else - something less divisive, less politically pointed - to give? If this is about bringing joy to little kids who are already short on happiness, why distract from that?

Toys for Tots Jesus Doll Marines Beverly Hills Teddy Bear Company

Glorious!

The man that brought you Dinosaur Adventure Land (Where Dinosaurs and the Bible Meet!) is going to jail. From the Pensacola News Journal:

Pensacola evangelist and tax protester Kent Hovind winked at his wife and gave her a reassuring smile as he was led away to jail.

Jo Hovind clutched the necktie he had been wearing. She kept her eyes on her husband until he was out of sight.

A 12-person jury deliberated for 2½ hours on Thursday before finding the couple guilty of all counts in their tax-fraud case.

Kent Hovind, founder of Creation Science Evangelism and Dinosaur Adventure Land in Pensacola, was found guilty of 58 counts, including failure to pay $845,000 in employee-related taxes. He faces a maximum of 288 years in prison.

Jo Hovind was charged and convicted in 44 of the counts involving evading bank-reporting requirements. She faces up to 225 years in prison but was allowed to remain free pending the couple's sentencing on Jan. 9.

The absolute fucking kicker is that Hovind's defense team argued that the IRS targetted him because of his religious beliefs.

Bullshit. You owed the IRS the better part of a million dollars. They targeted you because YOU DIDN'T FUCKING PAY YOUR TAXES!

The article at the Pensecola News Journal website has a comments section full of batshit crazy Creationists defending Hovind. Go read them and marvel...

Creationist Kent Hovind Christianist Taxes Jail

Ted Haggard on Video w/ UPDATES

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

More on Ted Haggard

From KKTV 11 - Colorado Springs:

A sudden about-face in the scandal facing New Life Church's pastor.

After Pastor Ted Haggard went public Wednesday night denying allegations of a homosexual affair, senior church officials told KKTV 11News Thursday evening, Pastor Ted Haggard has admitted to some of the claims made by a former male escort. The church's Acting Senior Pastor, Ross Parsley, tells KKTV 11 News that Pastor Haggard has admitted to some of the indiscretions claimed by Mike Jones, but not all of them.

Which ones? The world wants to know!

Some would accuse me, among others, of schadenfreude. They're wrong. Schadenfreude is a sense of satisfaction in somebody else's misfortune. Schadenfreude would be me being pleased that Ted Haggard broke his leg in a skiing accident. What's happened to Haggard isn't misfortune, it was a choice.

There is no choice in being gay, of course, but nobody forced Haggard to spend his days preaching to a crowd of 14,000 the sinful nature of homosexuality, demonizing gay marriage, and sitting in on conference calls with a White House that rode anti-gay legislation into office. If Haggard hadn't chosen to actively pursue an anti-gay agenda, nobody would care if he had sex with men - though his wife might be angry that he's having sex with somebody out of wedlock.

But he wasn't having sex with a mistress. To get a straight extra-marital affair to count for anything in an election, you have to do something extreme, like choke her.

Haggard set up being gay as a sort of über-sin, one far and away worse than breaking the sabbath, eating shell fish, or taking the Lord's name in vain. (That's why we're not writing laws outlawing NFL games on sunday, cotton-poly blend socks, or Red Lobster.) He's become a victim not of misfortune, but of a concerted effort by a significant portion of this country to marginalize anybody who isn't 'stright.'

There are millions of people in the United States that are victims of the same effort - Haggard's victimhood doesn't make him special. The hypocrisy, the fact that Haggard was/is one of the leaders of that effort makes this story noteworthy.

Hypocrisy is the only reason that news organizations as far flung as the BBC are running this story.

For all those who would see Americans as Pollyannas when it comes to politics, hypocrisy always draws a clear and sharp reaction from the American public. We'll have to wait to see what the fallout from this situation will be.

Ted Haggard Evangelicals Homosexuality Sex Scandal

Rumors on the Internets... UPDATE

A local TV station has an interesting story running:

DENVER - A gay man and admitted male escort claims he has had an ongoing sexual relationship with a well-known Evangelical pastor from Colorado Springs.

Ted Haggard, the minister in question, is not just any 'well-known' Evangelical - he founded and leads the 14,000 member New Life Church in Colorado Springs, is the President of the National Association of Evangelicals and occupied spot number 10 on Time Magazine's '25 Most Influential Evangelicals in America'.

Mike Jones told 9 Wants to Know Investigative Reporter Paula Woodward he has had a "sexual business" relationship with Pastor Ted Haggard for the past three years.

[...]

He claims Haggard has been paying him for sex over the past three years, even though Haggard preaches that homosexuality is a sin.

Jones also claims Haggard used methamphetamine in his presence on several occasions.

"People may look at me and think what I've done is immoral, but I think I had to do the moral thing in my mind and that is expose someone who is preaching one thing and doing the opposite behind everybody's back," said Jones.

Haggard has denied the claim, saying "I did not have a homosexual relationship with a man in Denver. ... I'm faithful to my wife."

As with all 'outings,' I mention this not to condemn Haggard for being gay but to point out the mind-blowing hypocrisy of spending your time preaching the sinfulness of homosexuality and working to write discrimination against gay people into law - all while engaging in that behavior himself.

I will accuse Ted Haggard of bigotry, but I won't accuse him of hypocrisy yet. I'm sure that this will be investigated and we'll see if the accusations have any merit.

UPDATE: 2:06 pm - Apparently the accuser, Mike Jones, has voicemail recordings, a letter, and will be taking a lie detector test.

Ted Haggard Homosexuality Evangelical Sex Scandal Hypocrisy

The Military as Microcosm

From the Washington Post:

The U.S. military is being buffeted by dueling legal claims over religion, with one set of plaintiffs contending that the Pentagon is suppressing evangelical Christianity and another set arguing just the opposite -- that the brass gives the most aggressive evangelicals free rein to proselytize in uniform.

I generally believe that when both sides are unhappy about a situation, it means that a even compromise has been reached. Unfortunately, that isn't really the case here.

In the latest lawsuit, an evangelical Christian chaplain is charging the Navy with violating his First Amendment rights by forbidding him to pray "in the name of Jesus" at public ceremonies.

Chaplain Gordon J. Klingenschmitt filed the lawsuit Oct. 25 in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia with assistance from the Rutherford Institute, a Charlottesville-based public interest law firm that sued the Pentagon over its policy of requiring U.S. servicewomen stationed in Saudi Arabia to wear a Muslim head covering.

Klingenschmitt's suit alleges that the Navy has effectively established a "civic religion" and is "suppressing [his] Christian faith" by requiring him to offer nonsectarian prayers when speaking to diverse groups of sailors.

The other lawsuit, brought by Reagan White House official Michael L. "Mikey" Weinstein, contends that some Evangelicals within the military "believe they have an illimitable right to push their biblical worldview in the military, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, up and down the chain of command. ... Our view is that you certainly have that right at certain times and places that are well established by the U.S. Constitution and our case law. ... But you can't do it on the job when you're wearing the uniform during the workday."

The reason that my 'both sides angry = good compromise' reading doesn't work here is that in an organization as large as the U.S. military (second largest in the world in terms of active personnel) uniform enforcement of standards is impossible.

In some parts of the military, the line is being held against creeping theocracy. The fundies, by now used to being able to pretty much do as they please, get pissed and sue. In other parts of the military, theocratic sentiments are not just tolerated but encouraged. In those situations, people dedicated to the separation of Church and State are forced to take legal means to correct the situation.

* * * * *
The title of this post is 'The Military as Microcosm.' As an imperfect, though concentrated cross-section of the country, the military is facing a problem that the rest of the country will soon be forced to face. While this election may see Democrats make gains across the country, the regional differences in public approval of mixing Christianity and Government will remain.

Retired Navy Capt. Gary R. Pollitt, executive director of the Military Chaplains Association, a private, nonprofit group says "The only thing I can safely predict is, get ready for new controversies over the place of evangelism in the armed forces."

He's right, but don't expect the coming controversies to be limited to the armed forces.

Evangelism Military Christianists

Thank God I'm Married...

Otherwise I'd be the target population for the White House's new Abstinence program.

Did I mention I'm closer to 30 than 20?

From the USA Today:

The federal government's "no sex without marriage" message isn't just for kids anymore.

Now the government is targeting unmarried adults up to age 29 as part of its abstinence-only programs, which include millions of dollars in federal money that will be available to the states under revised federal grant guidelines for 2007.

The government says the change is a clarification. But critics say it's a clear signal of a more directed policy targeting the sexual behavior of adults.

"They've stepped over the line of common sense," said James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth, a Washington, D.C.-based non-profit that supports sex education. "To be preaching abstinence when 90% of people are having sex is in essence to lose touch with reality. It's an ideological campaign. It has nothing to do with public health."

Abstinence is probably the best policy for 14 year olds, though they should have accurate knowledge about contraception. When it comes to 17 year olds, the idea that 'just say no' will prevent pregnancy and STDs becomes silly. If we're talking about 24 year olds, it's downright ludicrous. At age 18, you're old enough to fight and die for your country in Iraq, vote, smoke, and be treated like an adult in the eyes of the law - but not old enough, apparently, to decide if a sexual relationship is ok outside of wedlock.

The National Center for Health Statistics puts the percentage of 20-29 year olds having sex at 90%.

Wade Horn, the Department of Health and Human Services' assistant secretary for children and families says that the reason for the targeting of 19-29 year olds is that 19-29 year olds have the most babies out of wedlock. "The message is 'It's better to wait until you're married to bear or father children' ... The only 100% effective way of getting there is abstinence."

My guess is that 19-29 year old women probably have the majority of babies period. I could be wrong, but I'm not.

The idea that the only acceptable form of a family is a 'Leave it to Beaver' sort of nuclear family is one deeply rooted in the Social Conservative mind. This change is an effort, funded by your federal tax dollars, to stigmatize anybody who doesn't fall in line with what a bunch of Christianist assholes think is right.

If a man and a woman (or two women or two men) decide that they want a child but don't want to get married, as adults, that's their business. The government shouldn't be interfering in their personal lives.

If the government's effort is to prevent accidental pregnancies among adults, 90% of which are sexually active, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that proper education about contraceptives is the better way to go.

Who says that the new, Radical Christianist Republican Party is out of touch with the real America?

Abstinence Only Christianists Republicans