Ellison and Goode - Shaking Hands

And that's Dennis Kucinich with Ellison. Hm. Kucinich-Ellison 2008.

Hm.

Pat Robertson Predicts

Virgil Goode Is "Saving Judeo-Christian Values"

Virgil's been making a name for himself: Head Religious Bigot of the 110th Congress. His latest opinion piece in USA Today is an example:

A letter I sent in early December was written in response to hundreds of e-mails from constituents upset about Rep.-elect Keith Ellison's decision to use the Quran in connection with his congressional swearing-in. Their communications followed media reports that Ellison, a Minnesota Democrat, had said that he would swear on the Quran. He repeated that at a gathering of Muslims in Detroit on Dec. 26.

My letter did not call for a religious test for prospective members of Congress, as some have charged. Americans have the right to elect any person of their choosing to represent them. I indicated to my constituents that I did not subscribe to the Quran in any way, and I intended to use the Bible in connection with my swearing-in. I also stated that the Ten Commandments and "In God We Trust" are on the wall of my office, and I have no intention of displaying the Quran in my office. That is my choice, and I stand by my position and do not apologize for it.

My letter also stated, "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 Quran."

Immigration is arguably the most important issue facing the country today. At least 12 million immigrants are here illegally. And diversity visas, a program initiated in 1990 to grant visas to people from countries that had low U.S. immigration at that time, are bringing in 50,000 a year from various parts of the world, including the Middle East.

Let us remember that we were not attacked by a nation on 9/11; we were attacked by extremists who acted in the name of the Islamic religion. I believe that if we do not stop illegal immigration totally, reduce legal immigration and end diversity visas, we are leaving ourselves vulnerable to infiltration by those who want to mold the United States into the image of their religion, rather than working within the Judeo-Christian principles that have made us a beacon for freedom-loving persons around the world.

I'm glad to find out that Rep. Goode's first letter was written after constituents flooded him with emails. Now I can start the proceedings to repossess the memory of Thomas Jefferson from Virginia with a clear conscience. We should just show up, dismantle Monticello, and move it to some place that understands what Jefferson meant by Separation Between Church and State.

People are rightly concerned about immigration issues. But maybe we can avoid the slandering of a fifth of the world's population while solving our immigration policies. What in God's green earth is the "Islamic" religion? I don't pretend for a single moment that the term "Christianist" is meant to describe all adherents to the Christian faith. Christianity is best represented by people who work to bring Christ into their own lives, not bash him into the lives of their neighbors. It is the standard Jesus himself set up when he said that "the Kingdom of God is among you."

However, he also warned about people who would hire trumpet players to walk before him, announcing their arrival at the Temple to give alms. Any Christian in the public eye risks this perception, but it's clear when said Christian is courting the attention.

Take for example his denial of a religious test in his desire to refuse Keith Ellison to swear in on a Quran. Technically, he is correct. His original letter, sent to constituents, makes no mention of trying to stop Ellison from using the Quran. One can only imagine the letters he was getting that such a response was considered necessary to mail out to hundreds of his constituents. Perhaps they were asking him what he was going to do about it. His reply: the only thing he could. He's going to have a Bible in his hand when he takes his oath, and he's got the 10 Commandments and "In God We Trust" on his office wall. And as long as he's their congressman, that's not going to change.

Seen that way, it's quite a remarkable brand of butter he's using on his cranked-up constituents. He's not going to do a single thing about stopping Ellison from using the religious book of his choice, but that gives him all the permission in the world to flaunt his Christianity. And he will, by God, and he'll make a stand against all of these Muslims that Bill Clinton let into this country, before we good Christain Americans have to abide the sight of another brown person carrying a Quran into our government buildings!

Rep. Goode's flock doesn't like Muslims entering our shores and our public buildings, apparently. They had enough of that on 9/11, as Rep. Goode makes clear. And Rep. Goode has to keep his seat with this kind of constituents, so I guess we should bless him for doing the best he could without giving them exactly what they wanted. He certainly is doing an excellent job in using the free publicity to get his immigration views out there.

Still, I find a bit of fault in how he's handling all this. It's bad religion to exploit religious prejudice to gain political power. Rep. Goode could have made exactly the same points he did while confronting his constituents' intolerant attitudes, and he could have done it in a way that wouldn't have endangered his seat in the slightest. Christians expect their leaders to call them on their sins. And when such correction is done with an attitude of love, all the Christians I've ever known will clam up and take the admonition. Instead, Rep. Goode grandstanded, revelling in his Ten Commandments wall hanging, a code well understood by anyone familar with the shenanigans of Alabama's Roy Moore. Furthermore, he is openly courting the comparison of Mr. Ellison's election to the attacks of 9/11. Behold the new McCarthyism.

Bad religion, bad politics. Mr. Goode, stay clear of Monticello. We'll be after it directly.

UPDATE: A nice fisking of a Goode press conference here. It doesn't catch onto Goode's point about not requiring a religious text, but there's a lot of confusion about that out there.

Plus, Ellison is using Jefferson's copy of the Quran for the swearing-in. That's bloody brilliant.

The First Month

I'll be looking for a mission statement basically. The above sentence is close.

The basic idea here is Christianism (for lack of a better term) isn't good politics, and it isn't good religion either. I want to explore both ideas here, and keep tabs on overt Christianism in politics.

On edit: Ha, ha. I read the first post again. Addressing Creationism in a serious fashion, and force the Christian Taliban in this country (and we have them) to defend their anti-American, totalitarian beliefs.

The role of the Christian in a democratic society is a challenging one. There are temptations, and the most politically powerful Christians appear to succumb to them.

I should state at the outset:

• Nothing wrong with being a Christian.
• It is possible to be a Christian and in politics in America.
• It is possible to not be a Christian and in politics in America.
• Nothing wrong with not being a Christian.

The problem, as I see it, is when anyone denies any of these propositions. That's when both politics and religion is being perverted. Fortunately, the number of people who truly deny these ideas are few. What I'd like to do on this blog is find these people and keep tabs on them and show you what they're saying and why they're wrong.

Sounds simple.

Focus On Family Releases Voter Guide

The guide is simple. There are several bills listed, and then the Congresspeople are listed with either a + or a - underneath that particular bill. The + means that the Congressperson voted to hold the cross aloft, and the - means that the person voted to see an empty horizon when Jesus returns. Those lucky few who got all crosses on their scorecard get a blue highlight over their row.

So what issues were the "most clear-cut, pro-family votes that came before Congress" in 2006, according to these loud and proud followers of the Crucified Jesus?

In the House:

• An amendment to the NDAA for 2007 "sought to lift the current ban on privately funded abortions at U.S. military facilities overseas."


• The Marriage Protection Amendment.


• The Pledge Protection Act, meant to remove federal court jurisdiction over cases involving the Pledge of Allegience.


• The Embryonic Stem Cell Research Act.


• The Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act.


• The Public Expression of Religion Act, which denies the awarding of legal fees to plaintiffs suing public officials for public displays of religion.


• Sponsorship of the Marriage Protection Amendment.

In the Senate:

• Cloture on Samuel Alito.


• Confirmation of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.


• Confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the US Court of Appeals.
• 
  
• Cloture on Marriage Protection Amendment.


• The Embryonic Stem Cell Research Act.


• The Lautenberg Sex-Ed Amendment "would have increased funding for comprehensive sex-ed programs, steered funding toward condom distribution, and undermined absinence-until-marriage education programs."


• The Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act.


• Sponsorship of the Marriage Protection Amendment.

For Focus on the Family, those are the issues. Keep the teenagers from screwing, keep the Pledge of Allegience in its amended form (which was first used in the Sermon on the Mount, right?), keep the gays from having families, and keep Michael J. Fox a-shakin'.

I am proud to report that my Congressperson, Eddie Bernice Johnson, has a flat horizon straight across, with a big goose egg from these Christianist theocrat-wanna-bes. But I now live in Texas, so my senators are right up James Dobson's butt. Cornyn is a blueliner, while Kay Bailey Hutchison didn't feel like the blue line was worth trashing embryonic stem cell research. She's the bad girl with the 87% marking.

You will be happy to note that Focus on the Family knows the difference between a vote on cloture on Supreme Court Justices and a vote for that justice to be confirmed. Both votes are tabulated here. There shall be no scalawags voting to filibuster but then voting to confirm Justice Alito. You can't hide, Democrat! This actually didn't happen, though - lots of votes for cloture but against Alito's confirmation, but only Chuck Hagel of Nebraska came close to denying cloture but voting for confirmation. Under his cloture vote is the Focus on the Family exception: NV - no vote.

Which brings up the question - how does a No Vote count in the scorecard?

It appears to count against the candidate. Continuing our visit to Nebraskan Senators, Ben Nelson (D) has an 87% approval rating from the Christianists. His only flaw was in not co-sponsoring the Marriage Protection Amendment. This is the bonus point category for the Christianists. Apparently, it's not enough to actually have voted for enshrining discrimination in the Constitution, but you've got to have your name on the amendment to truly be a God-fearing Christian. After all, when you hire a musician to parade before you as you deliver your tithe to the temple, you shouldn't have any qualms about preparing a banner with your name on it to follow you on the way!

Hagel's voting record looks just like Nelson's, but two NVs are recorded (one for cloture, and another for cloture on the Marriage Protection Amendment). These two NVs drop the Republican Senator down to a failing grade of 62%. Tacky, tacky, Senator Hagel. You've let a Democrat (in name only) show you up on family issues. You better start showing up for those cloture votes.

But does a No Vote count against you, all the way through the voter guide?

Not if you're Speaker of the House.

The House has seven issues tabulated in this guide. J. Dennis Hastert (R-IL) only voted on three of these issues, but his FOF rating is a 67%! On the four issues he didn't vote for, he is given not an NV, but an S - Speaker Did Not Vote.

The matter of the Speaker voting is part of the House culture and code. The rule currently states:

The Speaker is not required to vote in ordinary legislative proceedings, except when his vote would be decisive or when the House is engaged in voting by ballot.

So, FOF arrives at their 67% rating as follows - the speaker's four non-vote items are eliminated from the mix, and he's judged solely on the other three. Two votes for Jesus, one vote against the Savior, and Hastert stands at 67%.

The one vote against Jesus? Sponsorship of the House's version of the Marriage Protection Act. Is the Speaker sponsoring legislation frowned upon in the House? If so, this probably shouldn't have counted against him either. I find on his Congressional web biography that he "sponsored legislation in 2002 to designate the Ronald Reagan Boyhood Home in Dixon a National Historic Site." If that's not a commitment to family values, I don't know what is. However, it is rather innocuous. Is Hastert on record as sponsoring more notable legislation as Speaker? Yes, and yes, and yes.

So it appears that the Christianists do have a grievance with the Speaker on not putting his name on their gaybashing bill. After all, Hastert can sponsor 600,000 dead Iraqis and corporate welfare for Big Pharm, and he can cosponsor Paris Hilton's big fat tax break - why can't he put a memorial brick in the wall between a gay man and his dying partner in a hospital room? Ingrate.

The Hastert toss-the-race exemption worked well for Tom DeLay - the five races he was unable to vote on because of his unfortunate indictment left him with a 50% rating. And Sam Johnson forfeited a blue line because of a family emergency. I know this because the Focus on the Family scorekeepers were helpful enough to place a star by his 85% rating, so the good folks wouldn't hold his lack of voting on the Marriage Protection Amendment against him.

I'll close here, but there's more fun to be had with this voter's guide. The introduction and the descriptions of the bills are just precious!

The Christianist Chronicles

Taking up the challenge from Tristero:

My point is this: without specifically addressing the issues raised in a knowledgeable way, which requires studying your opponent's position and beliefs with great care, there is no way to persuade others that your opponent is worthless.

Now there are very good reasons why many good people should not bother to address creationism in a serious fashion. But someone has to. And someone must study and address the incoherent and repellent theology of christianism in a direct way. You not only provide the media with compelling reasons to marginalize these genuinely marginal beliefs, but you also publicize alternative theologies that do not hold as their goal the establishment of an American theocracy. Furthermore, you shift the locus of dispute from a defensive fight on the worthiness of enlightenment values. Instead, by knowledgeably disputing christianist theology, you place christianists on the defensive, forcing them to defend their radical theocratic beliefs. Again, the audience we're trying to persuade is not christianists, but those who give them enough stature to advance their cause in the mass media.

That's what this blog will do.