A President who speaks "the language of Zion"?

[dsdrane]

With Mitt Romney giving speeches about his Mormonism and Baptist-preacher-cum-Arkansas-Governor Mike Huckabee [where do they come up with these names!?] enjoying a dizzying rise in the polls...all less than a month from the Iowa Caucus, I thought additional discussion was warranted.

For starters, check out Joe Conason's piece on salon.com here (http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/12/07/religion_presidency/).

[antonyh]

Let's take this step-by-step:

1) Mission of the Family Research Council:

The Family Research Council (FRC) champions marriage and family as the foundation of civilization, the seedbed of virtue, and the wellspring of society. FRC shapes public debate and formulates public policy that values human life and upholds the institutions of marriage and the family. Believing that God is the author of life, liberty, and the family, FRC promotes the Judeo-Christian worldview as the basis for a just, free, and stable society.

http://www.frc.org/img/oval_office.jpg

2) Family Research Council and the Republican Study Committee. Who?

The Family Research Council host a weekly strategy lunch meeting with the Republican Study Committee's "Values Action Team". They are part of the over 100 conservative House Republicans.

http://johnshadegg.house.gov/rsc/word/VAT.doc

3) On May 2, 2007, the Republican Study Committee writes to President Bush to veto hate crimes legislation

http://www.house.gov/hensarling/rsc/doc/050207_HateCrimes_RSCLtrToPres.PDF

4) The White House responds on May 3, 2007 with the veto threat.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/sap/110-1/hr1592sap-h.pdf

5) The Republican Study Committee rejoices.

http://www.house.gov/list/press/tx05_hensarling/rsc/050307HateCrimes.html

6) Fast forward to December 6, 2007. The Hate Crimes Bill gets stripped out of the Defense Bill and dies in Congress. Why?

Human Rights Campaign:

"The hate crimes veto threat issued by the White House and organized opposition by House Republican Leadership (Republican Study Committee?) cost significant numbers of votes on the right. Iraq-related provisions that many progressive Democrats opposed cost votes on the left. Moderate Democrats, many of whom voted for the hate crimes bill in May, did not want to test the President’s veto threat and risk a delay in increased pay for military personnel."

Ten years of civil rights activism tanked by a careful, strategic move by the Religious Right.

Now that President Bush is leaving office, who is going to be the new guy for the Family Research Council? How hard are they going to be organizing the religious right to make sure that they get the right man? Will they have Romney and Huckabee's ear?

[Emproph]

Now that President Bush is leaving office, who is going to be the new guy for the Family Research Council? How hard are they going to be organizing the religious right to make sure that they get the right man? Will they have Romney and Huckabee's ear?

Looks like they already have Huckabee's ear, twice. From BTB:

FRC’s Charmaine Yoest Joins Mike Huckabee’s Campaign (http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/12/05/1109)

As I said in the comments:
Well, if I had any respect for him before, it’s gone now. The slander that drips from that woman’s lips could make the devil shiver.

And someone else had posted this:
The FRC’s Joe Carter (The Evangelical Outpost) took a leave of absence and joined Huckabee’s campaign a few weeks ago, he had helped start Blogs for Fred.

Huckabee seems to be the darling since anti-gay seems to be the litmus test for being a "true Christian" these days.

I also found it interesting that in the last debate, Romney refused to reject the idea of eliminating DADT out of hand. He said he'd listen to what the military authorities had to say on the matter. I think he said it twice to clarify--AND he got boo'd for it.

Huckabee on the other hand pretended not to be openly bigoted:
Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee told Kerr that, "People have a right to whatever feelings and attitudes they wish, but when conduct puts cohesion at risk, I think that is what is at issue. That is why we have the policy we have right now."

Which of course means: "It's not gays I'm against, it's their need to have sex 24/7 that I'm against. That's why we have the policy we have right now."

Sorry Mike, I prefer when my bigots don't dance around the subject.

[antonyh]

Looks like they already have Huckabee's ear, twice. From BTB:

FRC’s Charmaine Yoest Joins Mike Huckabee’s Campaign (http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/12/05/1109)


Thanks for the post in the Box Turtle Bulletin. I did not realize that the FRC were sending over troops to Huckabee's campaign. No surprise.

On a broad strategic level how do we stop the encroachment of theocracy on our democracy? I've been thinking about this question a lot lately.

Here is a practical idea. Half of Democrats can register Republican and make sure Gulianni gets the Republican nomination. Then we can vote for Obama in the election :lol:

[Emproph]

On a broad strategic level how do we stop the encroachment of theocracy on our democracy? I've been thinking about this question a lot lately.

Here is a practical idea. Half of Democrats can register Republican and make sure Gulianni gets the Republican nomination. Then we can vote for Obama in the election

Yes, and Donnie Mclurkin can be Obama's right anti-gay-hand-job man.

I say we lay off, sit back, and let them come out one by one in rest stops all across America. Like gay marriage, it's inevitable.

Which reminds me, how come were not being blamed for that "strategy?"

[antonyh]

I think one way to stop the encroachment of theocracy on democracy is to drive a wedge between organizations like the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, American Family Association, et. al. and Evangelical Christians. I think when Evangelicals realize that these organizations are a disgrace to their faith, they will turn their back on them, stop giving them money and they will die.

There are some signs that this is beginning to happen. The Barna report titled unChristian shows that many young people have been dramatically turned off to Christianity by these groups.

The whole Hate Crimes Bill issue is a great case in point. Here you have the Family Research Council with a stated mission:

"God exists and is sovereign over all creation. He created human beings in His image. Human life is, therefore, sacred and the right to life is the most fundamental of political rights."

How does an organization with this stated mission oppose the Hate Crimes Bill? It goes against their principles, their faith and their God. Evangelicals are taking notice of this. Their "agenda" is triumphing over the standard of justice their God calls them too.

One of the most important questions is:

How do we dry up the funding that goes to these religious right organizations? How do we erode their donor base?

[Emproph]

:lol: on the rest stops

I'm not sure I follow your question:

Which reminds me, how come were not being blamed for that "strategy?"

Exactly, (sinister now) it doesn't make sense, does it?

Why aren't they blaming all the Republican gay sex scandals on the "gay agenda?"

Remember, even if you live on Mars, if you're openly gay and ok with it, you're automatically a militant homosexual activist--who's actively working to implement the nefarious "gay agenda." (oops, I mean "homoSEXual agenda") That agenda being normally if not exclusively defined by the anti-gay industry.

Therefore, having the power to define our fairness agenda as any form they wish, why not accuse us of this corruption within their own ranks?

Not that I necessarily meant to go there, but that all just sorta popped out. :D

[Emproph]

One of the most important questions is:

How do we dry up the funding that goes to these religious right organizations? How do we erode their donor base?

If information is the communication of knowledge, and information is power, then the power is in the communication of the information.

I don't think we need to reach their “donor base” directly, we just need to better reach THE media directly.

But more importantly, reach them creatively, it has to be fun. It’s the only selling point to get a wounded army of souls involved. (or get a jaded media industry interested...)

I don’t think we need to make any effort to impede anything necessarily, wedge-wise speaking. I think that some strategic (permanent) informational campaigns about the nature of anti-gay lies would do the trick.

The dead branches will fall off from there and the movement will truncate itself. Assuming of course that that's not already happening, at all. Otherwise, if it was already happening, I would have said: "The dead branches are falling off and the movement is truncating itself."

[Progo35]

The thing that frustrates me about voting and politics is that I often feel that when I vote, I am simply being forced to choose between two bad options.

[Emproph]

The thing that frustrates me about voting and politics is that I often feel that when I vote, I am simply being forced to choose between two bad options.

From the Onion (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30587) ('04):

Poll: Many Americans Still Unsure Whom To Vote Against

"At first, I was really leaning toward voting against Kerry, because the way he tried to hide his ambivalence about his military service made him seem like a political operator," poll participant and Trenton, NJ resident Amber Barthelme said. "But then, the Bush Administration's mishandling of the Iraqi prisoner-abuse scandal got me thinking that there's a lot to not like about the current administration. It's almost impossible to decide which side I don't want to be on."

It's a joke of course, but it's an important point. My mother in '04 took my vote for Kerry as support for him, rather than my disapproval of Bush -- despite repeated clarifications on my part. It was infuriating.

I can respect voting against someone, but I got the impression that Bush supporters (at least the most vocal ones) weren't voting against Kerry as much as they were voting FOR what Bush stood for.

So be it, but if that's the case, your argument shouldn't be BASED around why you're against Kerry, unless it is in comparison to, and in defense of why you support Bush. And I never really saw that exemplified in their arguments.

I wasn't voting for Kerry as much as I was voting against Bush. The tactic my mother used works in that situation. Patrick Buchanan (of all people) was the only one I ever heard who said he thought Bush was the lesser of two evils. I can respect that position and agree to disagree (for the time being), because it at least acknowledges my concerns.

[Emproph]

I found this NYT editorial (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/07/opinion/07fri1.html?_r=2&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin) to be thought provoking.

A couple snippets:
Still, there was no escaping the reality of the moment. Mr. Romney was not there to defend freedom of religion, or to champion the indisputable notion that belief in God and religious observance are longstanding parts of American life. He was trying to persuade Christian fundamentalists in the Republican Party, who do want to impose their faith on the Oval Office, that he is sufficiently Christian for them to support his bid for the Republican nomination. No matter how dignified he looked, and how many times he quoted the founding fathers, he could not disguise that sad fact.

The authors of the Constitution knew that requiring specific declarations of religious belief (like Mr. Romney saying he believes Jesus was the son of God) is a step toward imposing that belief on all Americans. That is why they wrote in Article VI that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

That article helped to clarify for me that religion, or one's "faith," isn't the issue here. It's the use of it as a political means to an end. That end being --by nature of it's current political use -- that some religions are "more equal" than others. Or to put it another way: "Some religious viewpoints are more American than others."

[dsdrane]

I'm continually amazed at how little the most (self-proclaimed) patriotic Americans know about their own country and its founding tenets. :disagree:

[antonyh]

I found this NYT editorial (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/07/opinion/07fri1.html?_r=2&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin) to be thought provoking.

A couple snippets:


That article helped to clarify for me that religion, or one's "faith," isn't the issue here. It's the use of it as a political means to an end. That end being --by nature of it's current political use -- that some religions are "more equal" than others. Or to put it another way: "Some religious viewpoints are more American than others."

Thanks for sharing this editorial. That is the issue that disturbs me...this implicit idea that religion qualifies you for office.

[ladyinred]

If they turn this country into a theocracy I'm moving, the RR can say all they want about religious freedom, which they are for (NOT) There is a damn good reason why there is wall of separation of church and state, it protects the religious freedom of all and not just certain groups. Anyone who would support religious totalitarianism is "NUTS"

Our constitutional protections and first amendment rights are too precious to lose and I for one will never compromise these on so -called " religious grounds." Religion has it's place yes, but not as an imposed state-sponsored one.When will the American people wake up and "get it"?

[ladyinred]

When republican candidates like Guiliani and McCain sell their souls to be in the good graces of the religious right, you can count on me not giving any of the republican candidates my support or vote. (Nor would I vote for a democrat who did the same)Talk about infuriating. These people are sworn in to uphold and defend the constitution of the US not to support some religious ideology that would tear down the wall of separation of church and state.:headbang::headbang: And I know this might sound a bit extreme, but I wonder if certain people shouldn't be tried as traitors or treasonous for trying to overthrow a democratic US govt and it's constitution and try to establish in it's place a theocracy..and on top of that go against the will of the people.

We as Americans also have a responsibility to safeguard those freedoms even if it goes against some authority figure who would proclaim otherwise. If they don't truly represent the people, and our democratic principles,out they should go.We as Americans do not owe and should not have blind loyalty toward any leader or party in this country, again they are sworn in to uphold an defend the constitution, if they do not serve the collective whole (American public) and America's interests, they should be voted out.

[Megandy]

The thing that frustrates me about voting and politics is that I often feel that when I vote, I am simply being forced to choose between two bad options.

I agree :(

I guess its a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils....

[Matt Algren]

I was looking for something else and found this thread. Kind of interesting to look at now that Palin's satisfied the criteria of Jimmy Dobson.

As for Huckabee, let him answer a few pertinent questions about his faith, too. Does he actually believe in creationist dogma that insists the planet is less than 10,000 years old, and that humans once walked with dinosaurs? How would that loony idea influence his science policies as president? Is he a believer in "end times" eschatology, which holds that American foreign policy should be shaped by the coming Armageddon in the Middle East? Would he apply the harsh punishments of the Old Testament to biblical sins such as homosexuality and adultery?