Two Polarized Ideological Views in America

[Darth Wong]

That, if anything, only confirms that such interpretations are inherently dishonest. To use statements like that (which do not even directly contradict Mark 10) as the springboard for an interpretation which completely repudiates Jesus direct answer to the question in Mark 10 is about as honest an "interpretation" as AG Alberto Gonzalez' interpretation of habeus corpus, or the fundies' pro-theocracy interpretation of the First Amendment. In effect, they're saying "Jesus' answer when asked how to enter Heaven is actually wrong because in this other area, we think he said things which could be interpreted other ways".

Complete arrogance. Once again, you ignore the significant possibility that Christians have alternative interpretations of that same passage.

Oh, I'm quite aware that they have "alternative interpretations" of that same passage, just as they have "alternative interpretations" of the First Amendment. To you, anything other than acceptance of such bullshit as equally valid constitutes "arrogance" and refusal to acknowledge their existence.

To you, Christian failure to support universal health care is moral abdication, but most American Christians don't apparently share your point of view. This doesn't mean that you're so right, they must be knowingly flaunting Jesus' instruction.

Who cares whether they consciously realize what they're doing? I'm perfectly willing to agree that they're being led by the noses by their brainwashers. That's the whole point of organized religion anyway. That doesn't change the fact that the interpretation itself is dishonest. All you're doing is pointing out how many of them don't actually think for themselves, as if this is an excuse.

The linguistic validity of the passage in question is usually disputed. The word "camel" could also be translated, in the original Greek, as "a thread of camel's hair," in which case, the proposition of putting it through the eye of a needle would be challenging, but not impossible. This lends itself directly to Surlethe's offer of other possible interpretations about riches.

You are, of course, free to complain that your interpretation of the Bible and those of Christians are inconsistent. What good that does you, I don't know at all.

What a load of horseshit. Did you ever bother reading the entire passage, instead of just that single quote about the camel? A guy comes to Jesus and asks what he must do to enter Heaven. Jesus tells him that he must obey the commandments, and he says he does. Jesus then says that he must give away his worldly possessions, and the man is sad because he has many possessions. Jesus is totally unmoved. It's not just an interpretation of a single word. He's asked a question point-blank, he answers it, and then people try to look for loopholes in it.

[Patrick Degan]

History demonstrates the evidence for these claims. What's going on right now in Africa with the Catholic Church is evidence for these claims. Shall it be necessary to point out the many, many times the religious establishment have sided with oligarchy or monarchy to block social reforms which would improve the lot of the common people and for the purpose of "preserving society" i.e. the extant power structure they were integrated into?

On the contrary, your claim regards the motivation of the leadership. I am not contesting that the religious establishments have perpetually sided with oligarchy and monarchy to block social reform, I am contesting your explanation for why they have done so. And so far, you have failed to provide evidence: one dissenter's take on the situation in Pakistan is not in any way support for your claim, any more than a 9/11 conspiracy nut is evidence for malicious motives in the Bush Administration post-9/11. By the way, your evidence is also not relevant: your claim regards religious, not civil, leadership.

Moving the Goalposts. The Pakistan example is a perfectly valid demonstration of the principle and underlines exactly the point that in the end it's all about power, either directly or indirectly exercised. Your criticism of alleged bias does nothing to factually refute the observations from the Pakistan Today article in the slightest. And to further underline the point:

Ireland's Magdaline laundries

Approximately 30,000 mostly young and poor women were forcibly sent to these church prisons because they were considered “fallen women.” The four protagonists of the film depict reasons women were incarcerated in the laundries: Margaret is raped by a cousin, Bernadette (an orphan) is considered too flirtatious, Rose and Crispina each has a child outside wedlock. Rose has her baby ripped from her arms only hours after giving birth and Crispina is later driven insane by her brutal treatment in the laundry and her separation from her son. There are also many older women who had spent most of their lives there. Women are forced to slave from early morning to evening in the profit-making laundries. Sister Bridget is repeatedly shown greedily counting the money. The women are beaten, degraded and suffer sexual abuse. All this that they might do penance for their “sins”!

The women were imprisoned not only by the walls of the laundries, but also through rejection by their families and society. In one scene in the film, Margaret has an opportunity to escape, but doesn’t because she knows she has nowhere to go. When one of the other women does manage to escape, her father brings her back to the laundry and beats her. After Bernadette eventually escapes, she is terrified of being reimprisoned when she sees cops and nuns on the street.

Mary Norris recently described her experience in a Magdalene laundry in Cork:
“Plenty of people will think the events in the film have been exaggerated to make it more dramatic. But I tell you, the reality of those places was a thousand times worse. There’s a scene in which a girl is crying in the dormitory and another goes over to her bed to comfort her. That could never have happened. You weren’t allowed any private conversation.

“Again, in the film the girls get glimpses of the outside world and even ordinary people who don’t live in the laundries. In reality, we were totally incarcerated. You could see nothing except sky.”
— Irish Independent, 8 March

It was not the Catholic church alone that was responsible for these institutions but the state as well. In The Politics of Irish Social Policy 1600-1990, Frederick W. Powell talks about state involvement with the Magdalene laundries:

“The incarceration of these women, especially of women who had more than one child outside marriage (some of them women who had been deserted and could not legally remarry), was proposed by the Commission on the Relief of the Sick and Destitute Poor in 1927 and, writes Powell ‘by 1932 an arrangement had been established between the local authorities and the sisters-in-charge of Magdalen asylums in Dublin and elsewhere for the containment of “this more intractable problem”’.”
— The Irish Times, 1 May 1999

Mary Norris was taken away from her unmarried mother by the Irish state: “A car drew up and a police officer and a child protection officer got out and told my mother they’d come to take us away as she was a bad example” (Irish Independent, 8 March). The role of the state in helping maintain these prisons is also shown in a scene in The Magdalene Sisters where the cops escort the young women through the local town in a “Corpus Christi” procession.

Clericalist Capitalist State: Enemy of Women
The Magdalene laundries were merely the tip of the iceberg of the crimes perpetrated against women and children by the Catholic church and the Irish clericalist state. As many as 300,000 children were locked in “industrial schools” where they were denied an education and forced to do manual work for no pay—slave labour —with the profits of their labour going to the church. From the 1940s to 1970s, a horrific medical procedure was carried out on pregnant women who would otherwise have had a caesarean birth. They were forcibly, and often without their knowledge or consent, subjected to an operation known as symphysiotomy, where the cartilage junction of the pubic bone was sawed through in order that the pelvis would “open like a hinge” during childbirth. As a consequence many women were crippled and condemned to a life of incredible pain and suffering. Expressing the Catholic-dominated medical profession’s rationale for this inhuman butchery, Dr. Alex Spain argued that if caesarean births were carried out, “The results will be contraception, the mutilating operation of sterilisation, and marital difficulty” (Irish Examiner, 17 April 2001). Women were simply seen as vessels for making babies.

In addition to all this, there were the horrendous consequences of the church’s “normal” ideological brainwashing. As prominent biologist and staunch atheist Richard Dawkins aptly noted in an interview with The Dubliner magazine (September 2002):
“Regarding the accusations of sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests, deplorable and disgusting as those abuses are, they are not so harmful to the children as the grievous mental harm in bringing up the child Catholic in the first place. I had a letter from a woman in America in her forties, who said that when she was a child of about seven, brought up a Catholic, two things happened to her: one was that she was sexually abused by her parish priest. The second thing was that a great friend of hers at school died, and she had nightmares because she thought her friend was going to hell because she wasn’t Catholic. For her there was no question that the greatest child abuse of those two was the abuse of being taught about hell. Being fondled by the priest was negligible in comparison.”

The popularity of The Magdalene Sisters is an indication that many people have family members or know someone who was incarcerated in one of these prisons. The timing of the film also intersected outrage over a series of other scandals in the Catholic church, from the brutality dished out to children in “industrial schools” to the scores of cases of sexual abuse inflicted by priests, which sparked protests outside churches last year. Because of these protests and widespread outrage against the church hierarchy as well as some reforms in recent years, many people think that the role of the Catholic church in Ireland has fundamentally changed, that things like the Magdelene laundries are merely historical excesses. Indeed, the Irish bourgeoisie has for a number of years attempted to cultivate the image of Ireland as a modern, secular state. Despite some important but limited and reversible reforms—and the fact that many people no longer listen to church rules, especially regarding sexuality—Ireland remains a vicious clericalist state where there are strong ties between the state and the church.

Condoms were only legalised in 1985. Divorce (only legalised in 1997) is difficult to obtain. While homosexuality ceased to be a criminal offence in 1993, gays are beset by anti-gay bigotry on a daily basis. Meanwhile, abortion is still banned.

The Catholic church controls 93 percent of the schools (another 6 percent are run by the Church of Ireland) as well as most of the hospitals. In the budget for 2000, the government proposed to “individualise” the tax bands in order to encourage married women to enter the labour force but was met with howls of indignation by the bishops and backed down. The government has made sure that the church’s massive wealth will be barely dented by compensation claims by people who suffered in the “industrial schools”: a “secret” deal was arranged so that the religious orders will have to pay no more than E128 million (and much of that in the form of property already transferred to church-controlled charities!), while the total bill is likely to be between E500 million and E1 billion. Thus, through our taxes the working class will end up paying for the church’s crimes! A particularly surreal example of the clericalist nature of the state was the mobilisation of the Irish Army in Spring 2001 to escort the alleged “sacred relics” of St. Therese of Lisieux around the country in a primitive ritual at the behest of the church. For the separation of church and state!

Catholicism has been one of the main defining aspects of Irish nationalism: historically, it was religion, more so than language or racial differences, which distinguished the Irish from their British colonial overlords. Religious reaction and sectarian division are key to the maintenance of capitalist exploitation and oppression throughout Ireland. The identification of religion with national identity was deliberately encouraged by the Irish bourgeoisie after independence in order to tie the working class to their exploiters and to regiment the population with reactionary ideology, of which anti-communism was no small part. Thus, DeValera’s 1937 constitution enshrined the church’s “special position” in Article 44 (repealed only in 1972). The government considers itself entitled to deport the immigrant parents of children who are Irish citizens, thus tearing families apart when it suits the state, and this position was recently upheld by the Supreme Court. We demand full citizenship rights for all immigrants! No deportations!

Catholic Nationalism and Labourite Reformism
The Catholic nationalism of the Irish bourgeoisie is brought into the working class by the pro-capitalist Labour Party and trade-union bureaucracy. For decades Labour leaders were members of the sinister Knights of Columbanus. In the early 1950s, Minister for Health Noël Browne attempted to introduce a limited free health programme for children and pregnant women, the Mother and Child Scheme. This provoked outrage from the bishops and the church-run medical establishment. As Browne describes in his autobiography Against the Tide, Archbishop John Charles McQuaid “considered the health scheme an encroachment by the state on the church’s role, which he considered to be, among much else, ‘to determine and to control the social attitudes of the family in the Republic, especially in the delicate matters of maternity and sexuality’.” Within months the church crushed the scheme and Browne was hounded out of the government. Labour Party leader William Norton scandalously sided with the church against Noël Browne and the Mother and Child Scheme. The Irish Trades Union Congress initially supported the Scheme but retreated once the bishops denounced it. Think Labour has changed? On the question of abortion, Labour’s delegate conference in 2001 passed a motion for the “right to choose,” but this position was overturned by the Labour leadership. In the leadership election last year, Eamon Gilmore (who lost) was the only one of the four candidates who claimed to have a “pro-choice” position.

Last year the government carried out a reactionary referendum on abortion, attempting to overturn the X Case. We called for a no vote because if the referendum passed it would have eliminated even the possibility of pregnant women who were suicidal obtaining abortions and it would have emboldened the reactionaries, making the fight for women’s rights of any sort more difficult. Even though the referendum was defeated, abortion is still banned. At the same time, thousands of Irish women continue to travel to Britain at significant expense every year for abortions. And the health of many of these women is endangered by the abortions being carried out at a later stage of pregnancy.

And from Ann E. Cudd's book Analysing Oppression, Oxford University Press ISBN 9780195187441 pp. 169-170:

Religion is a form of tradition, by far the most pervasive (within individuals and societies) and important for more persons. Religion is consciously self-justifying, for it purports to offer reasons for following its prescribed traditions, either by reference to divine inspiration or maintenance of the "chosen" group identity. Religion not only helps to make oppression acceptable to both the oppressed and the oppressor groups, in some cases it constitutes oppression by aligning one social group with the sacred and another with the profane. It works both subconsciously and consciously to reinforce the material forces of oppression. There are religious groups that do not cooperate with existing forms of oppression, but they are few. Most religions form a substantial bulwark in the oppression of women, by distinguishing sharply between the religious value of men and women and permitting or even requiring their differential roles and treatment. Some religions actively proclaim social inequalities of groups, such as the Hindu caste system. Many religions sustain existing racial or ethnic divides that permit the in-group/out-group distinctions that we discussed in chapter 3. Distinguishing among groups of persons is an internal activity of nearly all religions. Perhaps the most basic of these are the distinctions between the believers and the nonbelievers, the enlightened and the unenlightened, the chosen and the damned.

Thai Buddhism, for example, constructs distinctions through its assertion that everyone must repay the karmic debt accumulated in past lives with suffering in this life. This in turn justifies the mistreatment of some social groups, since it can be said that their members are members of those groups in order to repay their karmic debt. In Thailand this is a convenient way for brothel owners and pimps to keep their prostitutes in line. Such beliefs encourage girls who are sex slaves to turn inward, as they realize that they must have committed terrible sins in a past life to deserve their enslavement and abuse. Their religion urges them to accept this suffering to come to terms with it, and to reconcile themselves to their fate (Bales 1999, 62).

Religion is a powerful source of tradition and meaning, and thus it can serve to keep even very brutal systems of oppression in line, by making those who suffer as well as those who suffer as well as those who are privileged believe that God has chosen them for their fates. Often, religion is a limited force for good as well as evil. In Mauritania, Kevin Bales argues that "Religion serves both to protect slaves (in Mauritania) and to keep them in bondage" (Bales 1999, 85). On the one hand the Koran requires the slaveholder to show kindness to his slaves, but on the other hand it permits him to rape his female slaves. Although the Koran says that only person captured in holy wars may be kept as slaves, and then only until they convert to Islam, Mauritania, which is nominally Muslim and uses Sharia as its official legal system, enforces slaveholders' claims on their slaves. So ingrained is slavery in their way of life that "for many older slaves, freedom is a dismal prospect. Deeply believing that God wants and expects them to be loyal to their masters, they reject freedom as wrong, even traitorous. To struggle for liberty, in their view, is to upset God's natural order and put one's very soul at risk" (Bales 1999, 108)

The support that religion gives to oppression is not limited to slavery. Religion is an important force for constructing and justifying family life and the roles of women and men within the family. Marriage is, in most cultures, a religious event first, and only secondarily a civil status. Marriage vows in Christianity require women to "honor and obey" their husbands, while not requiring obedience of husbands to wives. Muslim rules for women and men are also asymmetric and unequal, giving men the dominant status in public affairs. In Judiaism, in all but the Reformed sect, women and men are likewise prescribed separate roles, and women are unable to serve as rabbis. No major religion of the world, in all of its branches, treats men and women equally. Religions typically forbid homosexual unions and the power of religion to enforce this restriction can be seen in the current debate in the United States over gay marriage. Even when termed "civil union" many persons use religious arguments to oppose this legal status, despite the undeniable fact that the Constitution (absent a specific amendment to the contrary) mandates its adoption as a matter of equal treatment under the law demanded by the Fourteenth Amendment.

The record shows that there is a lot more than a mere coincidental alignment of religious institutions and oppressive oligarchies but rather a symbiotic relationship and aimed at one express purpose: the maintenance and perpetuation of power. Religious institutions demonstrably have a very heavy investment in the power structure and vice-versa. Any measure which weakens that power is by definition a threat to institutional existence, which provides a serious and well-founded motivation for the established church to align with the oligarchs and actively endorse if not participate in repression. As the Rev. Desmond Lesejane writes in "Of The Quest For Political Power And Religion":

What is it about the church and power?

Well power is seductive. Is it not its allure that led to the fall of humanity in the garden? And power once attained, will not be easily given up. It will do all it can to keep itself going. It can also smell vulnerability and opportunity from a long, very long way off. The seduction of the Zion Christian Church by provincial governments in the democratic South Africa; the co-option of the mainline churches – the theological literati, by the erstwhile president of the republic; the hijacking of the indigenous churches by the president elect’s, or is it anointed, movement; and the paralysis of the current leadership of the current leadership of the ecumenical movement should not be seen as a mere accident of history. This is an outcome of a strategy of power holders and seekers to win the soul and minds of the religious community.

It knows that millions of South Africans define and have their lives defined by their faith and religious commitment. Power knows this to be true despite the seeming contradictions inside religious formations and the fickleness of people’s adherence to religious principles. Power knows that religion offers a captive audience; it gives moral affirmation (and even cleansing); it provides a refuge in times of want; and it inspires hope, especially in situations of hopelessness. And in the masses of South Africans, it still gives identity.

Politicians know that the millions it needs to remain in power or gain power hear the voices and advise of preachers more than those of politicians. This matter even if many of the words said fall on deaf ears for the old truism about words (or is it lies) repeated often enough become taken as the truth.

And the church is vulnerable, seduced as it is by its love for power.

Quite often the church, individually and institutionally, falls to this seduction. Despite all its better wisdom it finds itself unable to resist the allure of power. Why is this so? Is it the quest for its own survival? That the patronage offered by political power can be extended to its coffers through donations and offerings at a lower level and may be larger funding for government projects and programmes.

Could it be that the present church finds the momentary glory of being feted by kings and would-be kings in resonance with glimpses of power and glory promised in the scriptures? Like Adam & Eve’s luring by the snake in the Garden of Eden, it just can’t say NO? Could it be that the church continues to want the power of its God for itself, that its claim to be a representative of God on earth actually means that it can become a god of this world, and to give face to this claim it must at least be seen to be playing with the other gods of this world. And they don’t come as big as political gods!

This affinity to power, this flirting with power is cancerous. It continues to eat away at the very essence and being of what it means to be church. It erodes the capacity and propensity of the church to be a servant of God committed to working for the well being of God’s people who are often just voting fodder for politicians. It forfeits its mandate to speak truth to power and be an agent for justice. It undermines its ability to build the unity of our nation, across political ideologies; cultural identities and social classes.

[Axis Kast]

Oh, I'm quite aware that they have "alternative interpretations" of that same passage, just as they have "alternative interpretations" of the First Amendment. To you, anything other than acceptance of such bullshit as equally valid constitutes "arrogance" and refusal to acknowledge their existence.

What has the validity of a given interpretation to do with the argument that conservative Christians in this country have little or no moral qualms about the rejection of the public option in health care reform? My point is that they would never agree with your argument that Jesus would have found their decision appalling.

Who cares whether they consciously realize what they're doing? I'm perfectly willing to agree that they're being led by the noses by their brainwashers. That's the whole point of organized religion anyway. That doesn't change the fact that the interpretation itself is dishonest. All you're doing is pointing out how many of them don't actually think for themselves, as if this is an excuse.

I wouldn't call it "brainwashing." I have a lot of problems with people who argue that the Bible offers anything static in the first place. There isn't a single passage that can't be made to have multiple meanings by one reader or another. That's exactly what bothers me about religion: who can verify the original, meaning, and value of holy texts?

What a load of horseshit. Did you ever bother reading the entire passage, instead of just that single quote about the camel? A guy comes to Jesus and asks what he must do to enter Heaven. Jesus tells him that he must obey the commandments, and he says he does. Jesus then says that he must give away his worldly possessions, and the man is sad because he has many possessions. Jesus is totally unmoved. It's not just an interpretation of a single word. He's asked a question point-blank, he answers it, and then people try to look for loopholes in it.

There are degrees of devotion. A Christian would tell you that not everyone is moved to take vows of poverty or chastity.

I want to be clear. Christians have no doubt that Jesus would condemn Obama. The likelihood of that actually being the case is, to some extent, unimportant. Could a good public relations campaign be made to take advantage of the interpretation you offer, tugging on Christian heartstrings? Probably. I imagine nobody in the White House has much thought about it.

[Surlethe]

Moving the Goalposts. The Pakistan example is a perfectly valid demonstration of the principle and underlines exactly the point that in the end it's all about power, either directly or indirectly exercised.

Oh, really? Moving the goalposts? Let's take a look at your previous statements to see whether I'm moving goalposts, or whether you've been arguing that the motivations of the leadership are governed by the pursuit of power. From page three:

The Christian Right are opposed to UHC for the same reason the Catholic Church is opposed to birth control for Africa. Religion can only thrive in conditions of ignorance, poverty, and desperation. Make people poorer, more desperate, and reduce their options for self-help or outside help to zero or as close to it as feasible, and you've got a ready-made flock willing to take even an irrational chance in belief in your snake-oil scheme or to at least come to your church as the only source of aid and comfort. Control a people's only source of hope and you've got them. Neat little mechanism for gaining and holding power in perpetuity.

Quite apparently, you believe that religious conservatives is simply a mechanism for gaining and holding power in perpetuity. Therefore, you're presumably, if not explicitly, talking about the emphasis religious movement leaders choose to place on various beliefs as they craft the messages they give to their flocks: their intentions as they choose their various sermons and homilies. When Simon_Jester disagreed and said he didn't think policies such as opposition to condoms or UHC were crafted specifically to spread poverty and disease, you stepped in to rebut him thus:

That's a nice theory but it just doesn't wash. The leaders have had plenty of time to see that the social policies they hold to cause a great deal of human misery and have had plenty of time to craft ways to guide their flocks in the direction of reform and justice. They have the resources to attempt to improve conditions for their congregations. Instead, they embrace those policies ever more tightly with each passing year and actively campaign against those individuals and organisations who do attempt to rectify conditions because their own self-proclaimed doctrine declares such action wrong if not actually evil. And if they can enlist state power to block progressive efforts, they do so at every opportunity.

Building on your initial claim - that conservative religion is essentially a scheme to gain and hold power in perpetuity - your second post in the context of your first post makes perfectly obvious that you hold to the belief that the leadership oppose social justice reforms for the express purpose of ensuring poor living conditions in their congregations in order to perpetuate their beliefs.

So no, Mr Degan, I am not shifting the goalposts when I ask you for evidence of the motivations of the leadership. You are simply backpeddling when you claim that it's all about power, directly or indirectly exercised; from the start, it's not been about power or whatever intricate connections exist between the social structure and the religious structure or whatever, it's been about the motivations of the leadership of these movements. So, will you back your claims up with evidence, or at least a well-reasoned and communicated argument?

[Surlethe]

That, if anything, only confirms that such interpretations are inherently dishonest. To use statements like that (which do not even directly contradict Mark 10) as the springboard for an interpretation which completely repudiates Jesus direct answer to the question in Mark 10 is about as honest an "interpretation" as AG Alberto Gonzalez' interpretation of habeus corpus, or the fundies' pro-theocracy interpretation of the First Amendment. In effect, they're saying "Jesus' answer when asked how to enter Heaven is actually wrong because in this other area, we think he said things which could be interpreted other ways".

Well, probably not that "Jesus was wrong", just "Jesus could be easily and incorrectly interpreted as having intended his statement literally". But yeah, I don't disbelieve that their interpretations are dishonest, or at least inconsistent. Fundamentalists certainly abandon their "face value" interpretation schema when its results fly in the face of what they want - e.g., the "God stores hail and ice in storehouses in heaven for wartime" (see here, here), or the common child sacrifices to Yahweh in the Old Testament (see here, here), or even the verses that Catholics use to support the doctrine of transubstantiation (not justify; in Catholic doctrine, the Church is the ultimate authority, not the Bible - but see here for the verses & interpretation).

[Surlethe]

PS- Mike, I'm curious as to how you'd face-value-interpretation rationalize Mark 10 with II Corinthians 9:7 - "Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver." "Only give what you feel like giving" seems to pretty directly contradict Jesus' command to give everything to the poor.

[Patrick Degan]

Moving the Goalposts. The Pakistan example is a perfectly valid demonstration of the principle and underlines exactly the point that in the end it's all about power, either directly or indirectly exercised.

Oh, really? Moving the goalposts? Let's take a look at your previous statements to see whether I'm moving goalposts, or whether you've been arguing that the motivations of the leadership are governed by the pursuit of power. From page three:

The Christian Right are opposed to UHC for the same reason the Catholic Church is opposed to birth control for Africa. Religion can only thrive in conditions of ignorance, poverty, and desperation. Make people poorer, more desperate, and reduce their options for self-help or outside help to zero or as close to it as feasible, and you've got a ready-made flock willing to take even an irrational chance in belief in your snake-oil scheme or to at least come to your church as the only source of aid and comfort. Control a people's only source of hope and you've got them. Neat little mechanism for gaining and holding power in perpetuity.

Quite apparently, you believe that religious conservatives is simply a mechanism for gaining and holding power in perpetuity. Therefore, you're presumably, if not explicitly, talking about the emphasis religious movement leaders choose to place on various beliefs as they craft the messages they give to their flocks: their intentions as they choose their various sermons and homilies.

Kindly demonstrate an alternative explanation, then.

When Simon_Jester disagreed and said he didn't think policies such as opposition to condoms or UHC were crafted specifically to spread poverty and disease, you stepped in to rebut him thus:

That's a nice theory but it just doesn't wash. The leaders have had plenty of time to see that the social policies they hold to cause a great deal of human misery and have had plenty of time to craft ways to guide their flocks in the direction of reform and justice. They have the resources to attempt to improve conditions for their congregations. Instead, they embrace those policies ever more tightly with each passing year and actively campaign against those individuals and organisations who do attempt to rectify conditions because their own self-proclaimed doctrine declares such action wrong if not actually evil. And if they can enlist state power to block progressive efforts, they do so at every opportunity.

Building on your initial claim - that conservative religion is essentially a scheme to gain and hold power in perpetuity - your second post in the context of your first post makes perfectly obvious that you hold to the belief that the leadership oppose social justice reforms for the express purpose of ensuring poor living conditions in their congregations in order to perpetuate their beliefs.

Again, kindly demonstrate an alternative explanation, then. All you're doing is saying "you're wrong" but not really backing your argument with demonstrable counter-examples. You acknowledge that religious conservatives are often on the anti-progressive, pro-oligarchical side in history and yet seem to find this to be nothing more than unexplainable coincidence.

So no, Mr Degan, I am not shifting the goalposts when I ask you for evidence of the motivations of the leadership. You are simply backpeddling when you claim that it's all about power, directly or indirectly exercised; from the start, it's not been about power or whatever intricate connections exist between the social structure and the religious structure or whatever, it's been about the motivations of the leadership of these movements. So, will you back your claims up with evidence, or at least a well-reasoned and communicated argument?

I have backed my claims, and you have simply ignored the examples I've posted as demonstration of the position. Shall I repost the article extracts you haven't even bothered to address?

No, Mr. Surlethe, it is you who is avoiding the issue and did so rather blatantly when you dismissed the Pakistan Today article with a backhanded Appeal-to-Motive on the part of the author of that piece.

Here's yet another example of the point. You have heard of Dominionism, I trust:

"Dominionism" as a Term or Description

The term "dominionism" is used different ways by different people. When new terms are developed, that is to be expected. If we are to use words and phrases to discuss ideas, however, it pays to be on the same page concerning how we define those terms. This is especially true in public debates.

In her 1989 book Spiritual Warfare, sociologist Sara Diamond discussed how dominionism as an ideological tendency in the Christian Right had been significantly influenced by Christian Reconstructionism. Over the past 20 years the leading proponents of Christian Reconstructionism and dominion theology have included Rousas John (R.J.) Rushdoony, Gary North, Greg Bahnsen, David Chilton, Gary DeMar, and Andrew Sandlin.

Diamond explained that "the primary importance of the [Christian Reconstructionist] ideology is its role as a catalyst for what is loosely called 'dominion theology.'" According to Diamond, "Largely through the impact of Rushdoony's and North's writings, the concept that Christians are Biblically mandated to 'occupy' all secular institutions has become the central unifying ideology for the Christian Right." (italics in the original).

In a series of articles and book chapters Diamond expanded on her thesis. She called Reconstructionism "the most intellectually grounded, though esoteric, brand of dominion theology," and observed that "promoters of Reconstructionism see their role as ideological entrepreneurs committed to a long-term struggle."

So Christian Reconstructionism was the most influential form of dominion theology, and it influenced both the theological concepts and political activism of white Protestant conservative evangelicals mobilized by the Christian Right.

But very few evangelicals have even heard of dominion theology, and fewer still embrace Christian Reconstructionism. How do we explain this, especially since our critics are quick to point it out?
The answer lies in teasing apart the terminology and how it is used.

Christian Reconstructionism is a form of theocratic dominion theology. Its leaders challenged evangelicals across a wide swath of theological beliefs to engage in a more muscular and activist form of political participation. The core theme of dominion theology is that the Bible mandates Christians to take over and "occupy" secular institutions.

A number of Christian Right leaders read what the Christian Reconstructionists were writing, and they adopted the idea of taking dominion over the secular institutions of the United States as the "central unifying ideology" of their social movement. They decided to gain political power through the Republican Party.

This does not mean most Christian Right leaders became Christian Reconstructionists. It does mean they were influenced by dominion theology. But they were influenced in a number of different ways, and some promote the theocratic aspects more militantly than others.

It helps to see the terms dominionism, dominion theology, and Christian Reconstructionism as distinct and not interchangeable. While all Christian Reconstructionists are dominionists, not all dominionists are Christian Reconstructionists.

A nested subset chart looks like this:
---Triumphalism
---------Dominionism
---------------------Dominion Theology or Theocracy
----------------------------------Theonomy
----------------------------------------------Christian Reconstructionism

The specific meanings are different in important ways, although the terms have been used in a variety of conflicting ways in popular articles, especially on the Internet.

In its generic sense, dominionism is a very broad political tendency within the Christian Right. It ranges from soft to hard versions in terms of its theocratic impulse.

Soft Dominionists are Christian nationalists. They believe that Biblically-defined immorality and sin breed chaos and anarchy. They fear that America's greatness as God's chosen land has been undermined by liberal secular humanists, feminists, and homosexuals. Purists want litmus tests for issues of abortion, tolerance of gays and lesbians, and prayer in schools. Their vision has elements of theocracy, but they stop short of calling for supplanting the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Hard Dominionists believe all of this, but they want the United States to be a Christian theocracy. For them the Constitution and Bill of Rights are merely addendums to Old Testament Biblical law. They claim that Christian men with specific theological beliefs are ordained by God to run society. Christians and others who do not accept their theological beliefs would be second-class citizens. This sector includes Christian Reconstructionists, but it has a growing number of adherents in the leadership of the Christian Right.

It makes more sense to reserve the term "dominion theology" to describe specific theological currents, while using the term "dominionism" in a generic sense to discuss a tendency toward aggressive political activism by Christians who claim they are mandated by God to take over society. Even then, we need to locate the subject of our criticisms on a scale that ranges from soft to hard versions of dominionism.

Theocracy is derived from the two Greek words Qeo/j(Theos) meaning "God" and kra/tein (cratein) meaning "to rule." The Reverend Rod Parsley, a champion of theocracy, or what he calls a "christocracy," told his congregation at the World Harvest Church, located just outside Columbus, Ohio, "Theocracy means God is in control, and you are not." more

The theocratic right seeks to establish dominion, or control over society in the name of God. The late D. James Kennedy, former pastor of Coral Ridge Ministries, called on his followers to exercise "godly dominion ... over every aspect ... of human society." At a "Reclaiming America for Christ" conference in February, 2005, Kennedy said:

"Our job is to reclaim America for Christ, whatever the cost. As the vice regents of God, we are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government, our literature and arts, our sports arenas, our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors -- in short, over every aspect and institution of human society."

Twenty-five years ago, dominionists targeted the Republican Party as the vehicle through which they could advance their agenda. At the same time, a small group of Republican strategists targeted fundamentalist, Pentecostal and charismatic churches to expand the base of the Republican Party. This web site is not about traditional Republicans or conservative Christians. It is about the manipulation of people of a certain faith for political power. It is about the rise of dominionists in the U.S. federal government.

Today's hard right seeks total dominion. It's packing the courts and rigging the rules. The target is not the Democrats but democracy itself. more

According to acclaimed journalist and television host Bill Moyers,

"True, people of faith have always tried to bring their interpretation of the Bible to bear on American laws and morals ... it's the American way, encouraged and protected by the First Amendment. But what is unique today is that the radical religious right has succeeded in taking over one of America's great political parties. The country is not yet a theocracy but the Republican Party is, and they are driving American politics, using God as a a battering ram on almost every issue: crime and punishment, foreign policy, health care, taxation, energy, regulation, social services and so on."

(To read the rest of the Home Page that was on this site before the 2006 midterm elections, click here.)

Back from the Brink

Before the midterm elections of 2006, dominionists controlled both houses of the U.S. Congress, the White House and four out of nine seats on the U.S. Supreme Court. They were one seat away from holding a solid majority on the Supreme Court. As of January 1, 2007, dominionists will not control the leadership of either house of Congress, and the President will no longer be able to so easily appoint dominionists to the federal courts.

Five of the Republican Senators who were unseated on November 7 received whopping scores of 100% from the Family Research Council and Focus on the Family Voter Scorecards. Those Senators are: Conrad Burns (R-MT), George Allen (R-VA), Rick Santorum (R-PA), James Talent (R-MO), and Mike DeWine (R-OH). Rick Santorum was the number three ranking Republican in the party. Santorum and Allen both had Presidential ambitions. (FRC and FOF are the most politically influential of dominionist organizations.)

And:

Christian Economics According to the Religious Right

Social Security is Unbiblical

With the propagation of socialism, people were ready for the New Deal of Franklin Roosevelt. Programs such as Social Security and other welfare agencies, set up the State as provider rather than God. (America's Providential History, p.251)

Social Security tax will gradually be phased out for a system of private pensions. From the Texas GOP Platform:

The Party supports an orderly transition to a system of private pensions based on the concept of individual retirement accounts, and gradually phasing out the Social Security tax. (p.13)

The Bush Economy, New York Times, June 7, 2005

Governor Riley of Alabama, a conservative Christian offers a different perspective. He believes he has a Biblical mandate to raise taxes on the wealthy and corporations in order to help the poor. "Jesus says one of our missions is to take care of the least among us," the governor told the Birmingham News after announcing his plan. "We've got to take care of the poor."

"What Bob Riley is doing is acting like a Christian," said the Rev. Jim Wallis, the editor of Sojourners, an Evangelical Christian magazine that focuses on social justice issues. Wallis believes his faith mandates support for progressive policies such as government services for the poor. "The Bible is full of poor people," he said. "Biblical politics has the poor at the center." more

Beliles and McDowell tell us that two kinds of taxes are allowed in the Bible: a head tax (poll tax), and tithing. A tenth of each person's income would support "the church and aspects of welfare, education and other godly social needs." (215)

Shift Education and Welfare to Churches

Beliles and McDowell tell us: "Scripture makes it clear that God is the provider, not the state, and that needy individuals are to be cared for by private acts of charity." (187) In the Texas GOP Platform a starved federal government is accompanied by a scaled-down federal government with the abolition of the Department of Housing and Urban Development and Department of Education. Welfare of the needy is shifting to churches through Bush's Faith Based Initiatives, another of his signature issues. The Bush administration's strong support of school vouchers is paving the way for government funding of religious schools.

February 10, 2005: The Institute for America's Future released a report detailing the cuts and funding freezes to education . The report shows that Bush fails to adequately fund essential early education and after-school programs, eliminates the Even Start literacy program, freezes work-study funding for college and kills funding for 48 education programs. Outraged, IAF President Robert Borosage says, "If the president has his way, the poorest children will bear the largest burden - suffering cuts to education, nutrition and health care, and the bill of increased debt which they will be forced to pay throughout their lives."

End Government Regulation

The interest of big corporations intersect with a belief of dominionists that regulatory functions of government should be abolished. Those regulations that protect the environment, worker safety, public health and consumers are diminished as the regulatory mechanisms established over the past several decades become unraveled. Agencies such as the EPA and the Bureau of Alcohol and Firearms are abolished in the Texas GOP Platform. "A strong and vibrant private sector [should be] unencumbered by excessive government regulation," the Platform declares.

The Washington Post has featured three articles analyzing how the Bush administration is systematically dismantling the regulatory functions of government in ways that are not obvious and receive little public debate. The first article is called Bush Forces a Shift In Regulatory Thrust, August 15, 2004. The second article, 'Data Qualitiy' Law is Nemesis of Regulation, August 16, and, Appalachia Is Paying Price for White House Rule Change, August 17.

Also, as Bill Moyers pointed out in a 2005 address before the Union Theological Seminary in New York:

Let’s go back to 9/11 four years ago. The ruins were still smoldering when the reverends Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell went on television to proclaim that the terrorist attacks were God’s punishment of a corrupted America. They said the government had adopted the agenda “of the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians” not to mention the ACLU and People for the American Way (The God of the Bible apparently holds liberals in the same low esteem as Hittites and Gergushites and Jebusites and all the other pagans of holy writ.) Just as God had sent the Great Flood to wipe out a corrupted world, now—disgusted with a decadent America—“God almighty is lifting his protection from us.” Critics said such comments were deranged. But millions of Christian fundamentalists and conservatives didn’t think so. They thought Robertson and Falwell were being perfectly consistent with the logic of the Bible as they read it: God withdraws favor from sinful nations—the terrorists were meant to be God’s wake-up call: better get right with God. Not many people at the time seemed to notice that Osama bin Laden had also been reading his sacred book closely and literally, and had called on Muslims to resist what he described as a “fierce Judeo-Christian campaign” against Islam, praying to Allah for guidance “to exalt the people who obey Him and humiliate those who disobey Him.”

Suddenly we were immersed in the pathology of a “holy war” as defined by fundamentalists on both sides. You could see this pathology play out in General William Boykin. A professional soldier, General Boykin had taken up with a small group called the Faith Force Multiplier whose members apply military principles to evangelism with a manifesto summoning warriors “to the spiritual warfare for souls.” After Boykin had led Americans in a battle against a Somalian warlord he announced: “I know my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his God was an idol.” Now Boykin was going about evangelical revivals preaching that America was in a holy war as “a Christian nation” battling Satan and that America’s Muslim adversaries will be defeated “only if we come against them in the name of Jesus.” For such an hour, America surely needed a godly leader. So General Boykin explained how it was that the candidate who had lost the election in 2000 nonetheless wound up in the White House. President Bush, he said, “was not elected by a majority of the voters—he was appointed by God.” Not surprising, instead of being reprimanded for evangelizing while in uniform, General Boykin is now the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence. (Just as it isn’t surprising that despite his public call for the assassination of a foreign head of state, Pat Robertson’s Operation Blessing was one of the first groups to receive taxpayer funds from the President’s Faith-Based Initiative for “relief work” on the Gulf Coast.)

We can’t wiggle out of this, people. Alvin Hawkins states it frankly: “This is a problem we can’t walk away from.” We’re talking about a powerful religious constituency that claims the right to tell us what’s on God’s mind and to decide the laws of the land according to their interpretation of biblical revelation and to enforce those laws on the nation as a whole. For the Bible is not just the foundational text of their faith; it has become the foundational text for a political movement.

True, people of faith have always tried to bring their interpretation of the Bible to bear on American laws and morals—this very seminary is part of that tradition; it’s the American way, encouraged and protected by the First Amendment. But what is unique today is that the radical religious right has succeeded in taking over one of America’s great political parties—the country is not yet a theocracy but the Republican Party is—and they are driving American politics, using God as a a battering ram on almost every issue: crime and punishment, foreign policy, health care, taxation, energy, regulation, social services and so on.

What’s also unique is the intensity, organization, and anger they have brought to the public square. Listen to their preachers, evangelists, and homegrown ayatollahs: Their viral intolerance—their loathing of other people’s beliefs, of America’s secular and liberal values, of an independent press, of the courts, of reason, science and the search for objective knowledge—has become an unprecedented sectarian crusade for state power. They use the language of faith to demonize political opponents, mislead and misinform voters, censor writers and artists, ostracize dissenters, and marginalize the poor. These are the foot soldiers in a political holy war financed by wealthy economic interests and guided by savvy partisan operatives who know that couching political ambition in religious rhetoric can ignite the passion of followers as ferociously as when Constantine painted the Sign of Christ (the “Christograph”) on the shields of his soldiers and on the banners of his legions and routed his rivals in Rome. Never mind that the Emperor himself was never baptized into the faith; it served him well enough to make the God worshipped by Christians his most important ally and turn the Sign of Christ into the one imperial symbol most widely recognized and feared from east to west.

Let’s take a brief detour to Ohio and I’ll show you what I am talking about. In recent weeks a movement called the Ohio Restoration Project has been launched to identify and train thousands of “Patriot Pastors” to get out the conservative religious vote next year. According to press reports, the leader of the movement— the senior pastor of a large church in suburban Columbus—casts the 2006 elections as an apocalyptic clash between “the forces of righteousness and the hordes of hell.” The fear and loathing in his message is palpable: He denounces public schools that won’t teach creationism, require teachers to read the Bible in class, or allow children to pray. He rails against the “secular jihadists” who have “hijacked” America and prevent school kids from learning that Hitler was “an avid evolutionist.” He links abortion to children who murder their parents. He blasts the “pagan left” for trying to redefine marriage. He declares that “homosexual rights” will bring “a flood of demonic oppression.” On his church website you read that “Reclaiming the teaching of our Christian heritage among America’s youth is paramount to a sense of national destiny that God has invested into this nation.”

One of the prominent allies of the Ohio Restoration Project is a popular televangelist in Columbus who heads a $40 million-a-year ministry that is accessible worldwide via l, 400 TV stations and cable affiliates. Although he describes himself as neither Republican nor Democrat but a “Christocrat”—a gladiator for God marching against “the very hordes of hell in our society”—he nonetheless has been spotted with so many Republican politicians in Washington and elsewhere that he has been publicly described as a“spiritual advisor” to the party. The journalist Marley Greiner has been following his ministry for the organization, FreePress. She writes that because he considers the separation of church and state to be “a lie perpetrated on Americans—especially believers in Jesus Christ”—he identifies himself as a “wall builder” and “wall buster.” As a wall builder he will “restore Godly presence in government and culture; as a wall buster he will tear down the church-state wall.” He sees the Christian church as a sleeping giant that has the ability and the anointing from God to transform America. The giant is stirring. At a rally in July he proclaimed to a packed house: “Let the Revolution begin!” And the congregation roared back: “Let the Revolution begin!”

(The Revolution’s first goal, by the way, is to elect as governor next year the current Republican secretary of state who oversaw the election process in 2004 year when a surge in Christian voters narrowly carried George Bush to victory. As General Boykin suggested of President Bush’s anointment, this fellow has acknowledged that “God wanted him as secretary of state during 2004” because it was such a critical election. Now he is criss-crossing Ohio meeting with Patriot Pastors and their congregations proclaiming that “America is at its best when God is at its center.”) [For the complete stories from which this information has been extracted, see: “An evening with Rod Parsley, by Marley Greiner, FreePress, July 20, 2005; Patriot Pastors,” Marilyn Warfield, Cleveland Jewish News, July 29, 2005; “Ohio televangelist has plenty of influence, but he wants more”, Ted Wendling, Religion News Service, Chicago Tribune, July 1, 2005; “Shaping Politics from the pulpits,” Susan Page, USA Today , Aug. 3, 2005; “Religion and Politics Should Be Mixed Says Ohio Secretary of State,” WTOL-TV Toledo, October 29, 2004].

The Ohio Restoration Project is spreading. In one month alone last year in the president’s home state of Texas, a single Baptist preacher added 2000 “Patriot Pastors” to the rolls. On his website he now encourages pastors to “speak out on the great moral issues of our day…to restore and reclaim America for Christ.”

Alas, these “great moral issues” do not include building a moral economy. The Christian Right trumpets charity (as in Faith Based Initiatives) but is silent on social and economic justice. Inequality in America has reached scandalous proportions: a few weeks ago the government acknowledged that while incomes are growing smartly for the first time in years, the primary winners are the top earners—people who receive stocks, bonuses, and other income in addition to wages. The nearly 80 percent of Americans who rely mostly on hourly wages barely maintained their purchasing power. Even as Hurricane Katrina was hitting the Gulf Coast, giving us a stark reminder of how poverty can shove poor people into the abyss, the U.S. Census Bureau reported that last year one million people were added to 36 million already living in poverty. And since l999 the income of the poorest one fifth of Americans has dropped almost nine percent.

None of these harsh realities of ordinary life seem to bother the radical religious right. To the contrary, in the pursuit of political power they have cut a deal with America’s richest class and their partisan allies in a law-of-the-jungle strategy to “starve” the government of resources needed for vital social services that benefit everyone while championing more and more spending rich corporations and larger tax cuts for the rich.

How else to explain the vacuum in their “great moral issues” of the plight of millions of Americans without adequate health care? Of the gross corruption of politics by campaign contributions that skew government policies toward the wealthy at the expense of ordinary taxpayers? (On the very day that oil and gas prices reached a record high the president signed off on huge taxpayer subsidies for energy conglomerates already bloated with windfall profits plucked from the pockets of average Americans filling up at gas tanks across the country; yet the next Sunday you could pass a hundred church signboards with no mention of a sermon on crony capitalism.)

This silence on economic and political morality is deafening but revealing. The radicals on the Christian right are now the dominant force in America’s governing party. Without them the government would not be in the hands of people who don’t believe in government. They are culpable in upholding a system of class and race in which, as we saw last week, the rich escape and the poor are left behind. And they are on they are crusading for a government “of, by, and for the people” in favor of one based on Biblical authority.

This is the crux of the matter: To these fundamentalist radicals there is only one legitimate religion and only one particular brand of that religion that is right; all others who call on God are immoral or wrong. They believe the Bible to be literally true and that they alone know what it means. Behind their malicious attacks on the courts (“vermin in black robes,” as one of their talk show allies recently put it,) is a fierce longing to hold judges accountable for interpreting the Constitution according to standards of biblical revelation as fundamentalists define it. To get those judges they needed a party beholden to them. So the Grand Old Party—the GOP—has become God’s Own Party, its ranks made up of God’s Own People “marching as to war.”

Go now to the website of an organization called America 2l. There, on a red, white, and blue home page, you find praise for President Bush’s agenda—including his effort to phase out Social Security and protect corporations from law suits by aggrieved citizens. On the same home page is a reminder that “There are 7,177 hours until our next National Election….ENLIST NOW.” Now click again and you will read a summons calling Christian pastors “to lead God’s people in the turning that can save America from our enemies.” Under the headline “Remember—Repent—Return” language reminiscent of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell reminds you that “one of the unmistakable lessons [of 9/11] is that America has lost the full measure of God’s hedge of protection. When we ask ourselves why, the scriptures remind us that ancient Israel was invaded by its foreign enemy, Babylon, in 586 B.C. ….(and) Jerusalem was destroyed by another invading foreign power in 70 A.D. …. Psalm l06:37 says that these judgments of God …were because of Israel’s idolatry. Israel, the apple of God’s eye, was destroyed … because the people failed… to repent.” If America is to avoid a similar fate, the warning continues, we must “remember the legacy of our heritage under God and our covenant with Him and, in the words of II Chronicles 7:14: ‘Turn from our wicked ways.’”

Just what does this have to do with the president’s political agenda praised on the home page? Well, squint and look at the fine print at the bottom of the site. It reads: America2l is a not-for-profit organization whose mission is to educate, engage and mobilize Christians to influence national policy at every level. Founded in l989 by a multi-denominational group of pastors and businessmen, it is dedicated to being a catalyst for revival and reform of the culture and the government .” (emphasis added).

The corporate, political and religious right converge here, led by a president who, in his own disdain for science, reason and knowledge, is the most powerful fundamentalist in American history.

What are the stakes? In his last book, the late Marvin Harris, a prominent anthropologist of the time, wrote that “the attack against reason and objectivity is fast reaching the proportions of a crusade.” To save the American Dream, “we desperately need to reaffirm the principle that it is possible to carry out an analysis of social life which rational human beings will recognize as being true, regardless of whether they happen to be women or men, whites or black, straights or gays, employers or employees, Jews or born-again Christians. The alternative is to stand by helplessly as special interest groups tear the United States apart in the name of their “separate realities’ or to wait until one of them grows strong enough to force its irrational and subjective brand of reality on all the rest.”

That was written 25 years ago, just as the radical Christian right was setting out on their long march to political supremacy. The forces he warned against have gained strength ever since and now control much of the United States government and are on the verge of having it all.

[Lord MJ]

Moving away from the religious discussion for a moment. This latest gem

Any mandate for people to purchase health insurance is basically a tax on simply being alive... They are getting ridiculous... The idea of living off of the land is long gone. When we tell our children about past Americans that lived off of the land... they will think of it as a fairy tale. We are so far from what our founding fathers created and intended that I believe we have disgraced them.

What is with this worship of the founding fathers. If you went back in time and showed them a photo of Obama and told them that this is the president of the United States in 2009 they would be like "ZOMG!!! It's a Nig*hur!!!!" Why should we be basing present day social decisions off of what they think again?

[Serafina]

And if you would show them our technology, medicine, entertainment and so on, they would gladly embrace it.

"Living of the land" my ass.

[Lord MJ]

Think his point was that if somebody wanted to live off the land in America he couldn't because of taxes and the fact that someone can no longer live off the land is a sign that government has gotten too powerful and away from what the Founding Fathers intended. Doesn't make his position any less stupid though...

[ThomasP]

That said, I do agree with the key point: mandating insurance cover without any further reform is effectively just another poor-people tax.

Even if the point is wrapped in shit, it's still valid.

[Lord MJ]

http://www.minthegap.com/2009/09/03/why ... t-a-right/

Universal Health Care is not a right. There, I’ve said it, and there’s no contradiction when it comes to being a Christian, as some might think.

You see, there are articles like this one that would have you believe that those that do not believe that every person deserves health care simply for living are not only un-American, but also un-Christian.

Nothing could be further from the truth.


Apples to Apples

You see, if you follow the logic that it’s un-Christian or un-American to not have health care simply because you are born, then you have to start asking the question, “What else would be un-Christian or un-American?”

Since the lack of food could cause someone to die, then all Americans must have food provided for them. Same thing for shelter, and other necessities.

Should the government be in the position of mandating that these things would come to pass? How would they enforce it?

Let’s take food for instance. Food is in limited supply—different types have different limits. If all people must be fed, how do we decide who gets what food? In the current system, we pay for food, and the “better” the food, or the service provided, the more we pay.

Once we have universal health care, provided by the government, we all get the same. That means that the people that don’t need health care, or only need catastrophic care, pay for those that need more. And the service for both stinks.
Free

As a blogger, I’ve read a lot about the power of “free”. It’s crazy how people’s minds work, but the idea of getting something for nothing (even if paying 0.01 for a better product was on the table!) is incredibly strong.

Once something’s given away for free, everyone wants it. People are willing to trade things that they don’t know have value for something “free”.

When someone hears that healthcare will be “free” and they desire this end they aren’t thinking about the privacy implications. They aren’t thinking about the fact that their choices will be limited. They aren’t thinking about the fact that their taxes will increase and that the financial rewards for invention will be lessened.

They are only thinking about themselves.
Selfishness

And that’s at the root of this—and why Rev. Jim Rigby is exactly wrong. Universal Health Care isn’t about helping others, it’s about feeding a selfish human nature.

Bear with me now.

The concept is this: Most people that need health care get it. Most people that need food get it. And they get what they can afford and the system balances itself out.

Though Universal Healthcare might make people that want to provide it feel good, the reality is that they are taking money from people to give to someone else.

Rev. Rigby used the following illustration in his talk:

The late Brazilian bishop Dom Hélder Câmara said it well: "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a Communist."

Because one of them is an act you chose to do—you gave of your food to the poor—and one of them is an act you are choosing to force everyone to do. If I choose to help someone, that’s something. If you come up to me and tell me to give my money to someone else, that’s theft. I’m being mugged.

It’s not a question of whether I want to see everyone get the treatment they need (regardless of whether the treatment works, which is another issue entirely). I would love for everyone to have healthcare insurance. The problem comes into play, the reason that it is un-American, is that it’s not right to force people to pay for someone else.

It’s fine if they elect to, and they should be encouraged to do so, but it’s wrong to force people into that scenario, and it just degrades the entire system—like practically everything government touches.

It’s selfish—the people that propose it want to feel good, they want to have the power to take someone else’s money—and it’s wrong.

SIGH....

How can you argue against someone that feels that UHC is theft. I'm even willing to believe that people like this generally want everyone to have affordable care and are not selfish bastards, but due to their moral belief that theft to serve a need is immoral and an assault against free people, they can't support UHC. How can you reason with such folks?

[Duckie]

When the author has to tell the reader to ignore their common sense railing against the idea that letting people starve to death is fair and christian, you know he's having trouble even convincing himself.

[Gil Hamilton]

PS- Mike, I'm curious as to how you'd face-value-interpretation rationalize Mark 10 with II Corinthians 9:7 - "Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver." "Only give what you feel like giving" seems to pretty directly contradict Jesus' command to give everything to the poor.

Given that Corinthians was Paul talking, I don't see how contradicting Jesus is a problem there. Corinthians was about converting Greeks after all, who were about living the good life. Paul and Jesus didn't seem to see alot of things eye-to-eye.

[Knife]

The far right wingnuts screaming "The Founding Fathers said..." or "Back to the Constitution..." just further the idea of these people not knowing what the fuck they are talking about. From the very beginning of the Constitution, there were the Federalists and anti federalists. While most of these arguments about the government can't do this, that and the other thing would have appealed to the anti federalists, the Federalists would have laughed themselves silly over the notion that they can't do that with government.

Hell, one of the leaders of the anti federalists was Jefferson, who was totally into the 'States rights' bit and 'small national government'. He wasn't even in the US when the Constitution was drafted and signed. His ideals of small national government was put to the test when he became president and even then it was widely noted that in his second term he took on more and more Federal power opposite from his ideology. This ideology was past on to the south during their rebellious years and similarly put down.

These wing nuts talk about the 'Founding Fathers' and 'small government' as anti federalists and southern separatists not understanding that the ideology was discarded in each era by other 'Founding Fathers' and by the Union when they cropped up. But they wouldn't know that would they, because they just have a gut feeling the 'Founding Fathers' meant that, they don't know that it was a major political divide in the Founding Fathers and they were not one monolithic group and in fact represented various special interests.

[Edi]

Like I said before, there is no use talking TO the wingnuts. Much more useful to talk to everyone else ABOUT the wingnuts and just how fucking crazy they are and how they lie about every single things. Just beat the drum of "They lie!" and sooner or later it will start to sink in, but the spineless right wing media in the US will never honestly evaluate anything.

From an outsider's point of view, the wingnut conservatives who are obstructing everything are practically traitors to the country. Perhaps not the rank and file dupes, but the leadership certainly.

[Samuel]

Let’s take food for instance. Food is in limited supply—different types have different limits. If all people must be fed, how do we decide who gets what food? In the current system, we pay for food, and the “better” the food, or the service provided, the more we pay.

Food vouchers and school lunch programs seem to disagree with that accessment.

Most people that need health care get it. Most people that need food get it.

Wow. This has fuck the poor written all over it.

If you come up to me and tell me to give my money to someone else, that’s theft. I’m being mugged.

Rights based ethics- defending you from the responsibility of lifting a finger to help other human beings.

it just degrades the entire system—like practically everything government touches.

Like the military and the FDA and the police... wait a minute.

[salm]

Since the lack of food could cause someone to die, then all Americans must have food provided for them. Same thing for shelter, and other necessities.

Should the government be in the position of mandating that these things would come to pass? How would they enforce it?

I don´t know but where i´m from the government does exactly that. If you can´t pay for food and shelter the government gives you money to pay for it. It´s the same with health care. If you can´t pay for it the government will pay for it.
The only difference is that you´re allowed to not buy food and shelter whereas you are not allowed to be uninsured (unless you earn large amounts of money).

[ThomasP]

http://www.minthegap.com/2009/09/03/why ... t-a-right/

SIGH....

How can you argue against someone that feels that UHC is theft. I'm even willing to believe that people like this generally want everyone to have affordable care and are not selfish bastards, but due to their moral belief that theft to serve a need is immoral and an assault against free people, they can't support UHC. How can you reason with such folks?

My favorite part was how he started off saying it wasn't un-Christian to oppose UHC, and then went on to never mention Christianity in his entire libertarian spiel

That's good stuff.

[Surlethe]

Kindly demonstrate an alternative explanation, then.

Before I do, let me ask you if you've even bothered trying to formulate an alternative explanation.

All you're doing is saying "you're wrong" but not really backing your argument with demonstrable counter-examples. You acknowledge that religious conservatives are often on the anti-progressive, pro-oligarchical side in history and yet seem to find this to be nothing more than unexplainable coincidence.

Since when does pointing out that you have provided no evidence to support your model necessitate that I find an alternative model? Especially when you don't seem to have given any thought to formulating alternative models yourself.

I have backed my claims, and you have simply ignored the examples I've posted as demonstration of the position. Shall I repost the article extracts you haven't even bothered to address?

Go on, then. Explain how the articles you've posted support your claim regarding the motivations of religious leaders. Shall I list the articles you've posted, to make it easy?

1. Pakistan Today article. As a description of how the government co-opted the particular religious structure, irrelevant to the claim regarding the motivation of religious leaders; as a description of events in Pakistan, irrelevant to particular claims about the US religious right and Catholic Church in Africa; and as a dissenter's take on events in Pakistan, it does not constitute meaningful evidence anyway until that dissenter can be shown a qualified expert on Pakistani government and recent history.
2. Ireland's Magdaline Laundries article. As a description of the Catholic Church's influence in oppressing women and undesirables, does nothing to support your claim regarding the motivation of religious leadership.
3. Excerpt from Analysing Oppression. Does an excellent job of covering how religion is a force for oppression, but does nothing to support your claim regarding the motivation of religious leadership.
4. Excerpt from "Of The Quest For Political Power And Religion". Supports the idea that churches, individually and institutionally, can sometimes be co-opted for, or themselves co-opt, the existing political structure; but does nothing to support your claim regarding the particular motivation of the religious leadership as pertains to their choice of preaching, nor does it support your specific claims regarding the religious right and the Catholic Church.
5. Dominionism articles. Congratulations, you've discovered Christian Reconstructionism's American theocracy movement; how does it support your claims regarding the motivations of religious leaderships?

Here's yet another example of the point. You have heard of Dominionism, I trust.

Of course. And yet again you entirely fail to support your point.

[Surlethe]

PS- Mike, I'm curious as to how you'd face-value-interpretation rationalize Mark 10 with II Corinthians 9:7 - "Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver." "Only give what you feel like giving" seems to pretty directly contradict Jesus' command to give everything to the poor.

Given that Corinthians was Paul talking, I don't see how contradicting Jesus is a problem there. Corinthians was about converting Greeks after all, who were about living the good life. Paul and Jesus didn't seem to see alot of things eye-to-eye.

It's not a problem if you don't believe in the Bible as the inspired, coherent, non-contradictory word of God. But if you're playing that game, you somehow have to reconcile the two verses. It's like the verses about child sacrifice to Yahweh in the Old Testament: it's commanded several times in Leviticus, related in Judges (in the etiological story of Jephthah) and Kings, forbidden in Deuteronomy, and flatly denied in Jeremiah. No problem if you subscribe to the Documentary Hypothesis - where Leviticus was written by one person and Deuteronomy was written by someone entirely different - but rather troublesome if you happen to be a literalist.

[Gil Hamilton]

It's not a problem if you don't believe in the Bible as the inspired, coherent, non-contradictory word of God. But if you're playing that game, you somehow have to reconcile the two verses. It's like the verses about child sacrifice to Yahweh in the Old Testament: it's commanded several times in Leviticus, related in Judges (in the etiological story of Jephthah) and Kings, forbidden in Deuteronomy, and flatly denied in Jeremiah. No problem if you subscribe to the Documentary Hypothesis - where Leviticus was written by one person and Deuteronomy was written by someone entirely different - but rather troublesome if you happen to be a literalist.

I would think in an opinion match between Jesus and Paul, Jesus would automatically take it. After all, were we playing the game, and everything in there is legit, Jesus is God, while Paul became the sects PR guy a few years after his conversion at Damascus, which happened after Jesus left the world of the living.

If we are assuming the text as written, we have to put vastly more weight on things Jesus says in the Gospels, rather than the opinions of Paul. Even if we take Paul as legitimately divinely inspired by God with a vision of the crucifixion and all the Gospels attributed to him were in fact by him as letters to various peoples in the Roman Empire, he's STILL writing for an audience and still an indirect source of any revelation. Jesus is direct from the mouth of the Almighty.

[Patrick Degan]

Kindly demonstrate an alternative explanation, then.

Before I do, let me ask you if you've even bothered trying to formulate an alternative explanation.

Like what? "They're really doing it out of the kindness of their hearts but getting it terribly fucked up somehow?" And you are dodging the question.

All you're doing is saying "you're wrong" but not really backing your argument with demonstrable counter-examples. You acknowledge that religious conservatives are often on the anti-progressive, pro-oligarchical side in history and yet seem to find this to be nothing more than unexplainable coincidence.

Since when does pointing out that you have provided no evidence to support your model necessitate that I find an alternative model? Especially when you don't seem to have given any thought to formulating alternative models yourself.

I HAVE provided evidence, whereas all you do is say "no you haven't". In other words —goalpost moving. And you still dodge the question.

I have backed my claims, and you have simply ignored the examples I've posted as demonstration of the position. Shall I repost the article extracts you haven't even bothered to address?

Go on, then. Explain how the articles you've posted support your claim regarding the motivations of religious leaders. Shall I list the articles you've posted, to make it easy?

1. Pakistan Today article. As a description of how the government co-opted the particular religious structure, irrelevant to the claim regarding the motivation of religious leaders; as a description of events in Pakistan, irrelevant to particular claims about the US religious right and Catholic Church in Africa; and as a dissenter's take on events in Pakistan, it does not constitute meaningful evidence anyway until that dissenter can be shown a qualified expert on Pakistani government and recent history.

NOT irrelevant —as it describes exactly the power-motivation as an object in and of itself. Your initial rebuttal was to simply dismiss the article in toto as bias on the part of the writer. In other words, an Appeal to Motive.

[*]Ireland's Magdaline Laundries article. As a description of the Catholic Church's influence in oppressing women and undesirables, does nothing to support your claim regarding the motivation of religious leadership.

NOT irrelevant —as it illustrates exactly a clerical power structure holding onto power entirely for it's own sake and deliberately engaging in policies which make the plight of the people being oppressed worse. In other words, fostering misery and ideological conformity to perpetuate the status-quo.

[*]Excerpt from Analysing Oppression. Does an excellent job of covering how religion is a force for oppression, but does nothing to support your claim regarding the motivation of religious leadership.

I see... The article describes how religion oppresses and yet somehow this is being done by the religious leadership for no discernible motivation or is just a coincidence? Again, what is your alternate explanation? What is your defence for these people? What other mechanism explains this process and exempts a clerical leadership from responsibility for the very acts they are engaging in?

[*]Excerpt from "Of The Quest For Political Power And Religion". Supports the idea that churches, individually and institutionally, can sometimes be co-opted for, or themselves co-opt, the existing political structure; but does nothing to support your claim regarding the particular motivation of the religious leadership as pertains to their choice of preaching, nor does it support your specific claims regarding the religious right and the Catholic Church.

I see... religious leaders can somehow co-opt the power structure for themselves and yet somehow not do so in a way which enforces ideological conformity to their misrule over their congregations or would not even bother with such a vital step to quell dissent.

[*]Dominionism articles. Congratulations, you've discovered Christian Reconstructionism's American theocracy movement; how does it support your claims regarding the motivations of religious leaderships?[/list]

Um, ahem:

Twenty-five years ago, dominionists targeted the Republican Party as the vehicle through which they could advance their agenda. At the same time, a small group of Republican strategists targeted fundamentalist, Pentecostal and charismatic churches to expand the base of the Republican Party. This web site is not about traditional Republicans or conservative Christians. It is about the manipulation of people of a certain faith for political power. It is about the rise of dominionists in the U.S. federal government.

Today's hard right seeks total dominion. It's packing the courts and rigging the rules. The target is not the Democrats but democracy itself.

Here's yet another example of the point. You have heard of Dominionism, I trust.

Of course. And yet again you entirely fail to support your point.

Because... you say so? Once more, what is your alternative explanation? Especially in the light of the Catholic Church's record in Rwanda:

Generally, in Rwanda, the leadership of the Christian churches, especially that of the Catholic Church, played a central role in the creation and furtherance of racist ideology. They fostered a system which Europeans introduced and they encouraged. The building blocks of this ideology were numerous, but one can mention a few – first, the racist vision of Rwandan society that the missionaries and colonialists imposed by developing the thesis about which groups came first and last to populate the country (the Hamitic and Bantu myths); second, by rigidly controlling historical and anthropological research; third, by reconfiguring Rwandan society through the manipulation of ethnic identities (from their vague socio-political nature in the pre-colonial period, these identities gradually became racial). From the late 1950s, some concepts became distorted: thus democracy became numerical democracy or demographic.

The philosophy of ‘rubanda nyamwinshi’ a Kinyarwanda expression, which politically came to mean ‘the Hutu majority’, prevailed after the so-called social revolution of 1959 ignored the basic tenets of democracy. In my view, recurrent genocides in Rwanda since 1959 were meant to maintain the ‘Hutu majority’ in power, by killing the Tutsi. Distributive justice became equivalent to regional and ethnic quotas; and revolution came to mean legitimised genocide of the Tutsis.

Church authorities contributed to the spread of racist theories mainly through the schools and seminaries over which they exercised control. The elite who ruled the country after independence trained in these schools. According to Church historian Paul Rutayisire, the stereotypes used by the Hutu-dominated Rwandan government to dehumanise Tutsis, were also spread by some influential clergymen, bishops and priests, before and after the genocide. The Catholic Church and colonial powers orked together in organizing racist political groups like the Party for the Emancipation of the Hutu (Parmehutu).

Mouvement Révolutionnaire National pour le Dévelopment (MRND) was the party which in the mid-1970s had introduced and institutionalised policies of racial discrimination which they termed “équilibre éthnique et régional” (ethnic and regional equilibrium, a quota system). The Church fully supported the quota system, but on 30 April 1990, five Catholic priests from Nyundo diocese broke the silence. In a letter to the Church’s bishops in Rwanda, they called the quota system ‘racist’ and urged that it was high time “the Church of Jesus Christ established in Rwanda proclaimed aloud and tirelessly” to denounce it, since it constituted “an aberration” within their Church. They maintained that the only sure justice in schools and employment was the one which only took account of individual capacities, regardless of people's origins, and that it was on this condition that the country could have citizens capable of leading it with competence and equity.

In conclusion, they said: “The Church should not be the vassal of the scular powers, but it should be free to speak with sincerity and courage when it proves necessary.” The authors of this letter were Fr.Augustin Ntagara, Fr. Callixte Kalisa, Fr. Aloys Nzaramba, Fr. Jean Baptiste Hategeka, and Fr. Fabien Rwakareke. All but the last two were killed during the genocide.

Within the Catholic Church, this discriminatory policy had long been in the seminaries. According to Fr. Jean Ndolimana, the enrolment of Tutsis in the Nyundo diocese was limited to 4%. On the school card, very seminarian had to indicate his father’s ethnic group. Instead of condemning those who were against the racist system, instead of playing an important role in institutionalising injustice by convincing their congregants to accept a morally reprehensible policy, Church leaders should have spoken out against racist discrimination. Regrettably the Church took the side of the political regimes, and thus was unable to exercise its prophetic role. It did not denounce political and social injustices, nor did it condemn the first mass killings, nor those which followed.

It is difficult to describe the position taken by the institutional Church just before and during the genocide. It is appropriate to take note of a declaration made by some “Christians” who met in London in June 1996: “The church is sick. The historical roots of this sickness lie in part with the “mother churches”. She is facing the most serious crisis in her history. The church has failed in her mission, and lost her credibility, particularly since the genocide. She needs to repent before God and Rwandan society, and seek healing from God.” This diagnosis offers a good summary of the situation. The Church lacks a sense of remorse and therefore cannot repent; hence its active involvement, in my view, is the last stage of genocide – denial.

Twenty-nine Rwandan Catholic priests, from Goma, Zaire, wrote a letter to the Pope in August 1994, demanding that the Rwandan government hould allow all refugees home and then hold a referendum to determine the country’s political future. The authors of this letter had no good programme for the country. All they wanted was to hold in contempt the Pope’s acknowledgment of the genocide. As early as 15 May 1994, the Pope had declared that the massacres in Rwanda were indeed genocide.

The priests wrote to the Pope: “Everybody knows, except those who do not wish to know or understand it, that the massacres which took place in Rwanda are the result of the provocation of the Rwandese people by the RPF.” These priests, contaminated by the genocidal ideology, placed His Holiness the Pope in the category of “those who did not wish to know,” to cover up their own shortcomings and those of the government they served.

Accepting failure is a virtue. Even so, it is difficult for institutions like the Catholic Church that are known to command respect world wide – above all when such institutions, have been party to policies of racial iscrimination and genocide. The Church decided to adopt silence and slander as defence mechanisms. The question is why the Vatican has accepted or tolerated such tendencies.

The call for remorse and repentance still seems unnecessary and roblematical for the Catholic Church. In March 1996, Pope John Paul II told the Rwandan people, “The Church... cannot be held responsible for the guilt of its members that have acted against the evangelic law; they will be called to render account of their own actions. All Church members that have sinned during the genocide must have the courage to assume the consequences of their deeds they have done against God and fellow men.”

Had this been accepted and done, it would have helped to end a culture of impunity that has characterised Rwanda for more than thirty-five years. This could have been an established warning to anyone who harboured the archaic racist ideology. It could have acted as a deterrent to foreign mentors, warning that continuation of such politics contravenes the principle of natural justice and is liable to be punished by law. Thirdly, it offers the only premises on which durable reconciliation; rehabilitation and reconstruction could take place or be cemented.

I chose to write about the Catholic Church and the genocide in Rwanda because I would argue it was the only institution involved in all the stages of genocide. As a layperson, it is astounding to hear about the “love, truth and trust” that the Church has achieved in a country where genocide took more than a million lives in just a hundred days, and to see the institutional Church protecting, instead of punishing, or at least denouncing those among its leadership or in its membership who are accused of genocide.

There is no doubt that throughout the history of Rwanda, Church leaders have had ties with political power. The Church was also involved in the policy of ethnic division, which degenerated into ethnic hatred. In order to succeed in its mission of uniting people, the Church in Rwanda and elsewhere must examine its attitudes, practices, and policies that have too often encouraged ethnic divisions.

And:

Creating a Hutu identity
In 1957, the Hutu catechist Gregoire Kayibanda, under the ideological patronage of J.P. Harroy, the Belgian Governor of Rwanda and Mgr. Perraudin, head of the Roman Catholic Church in Rwanda, publishes the 'Hutu Manifesto' demanding the political authority be granted to the Hutu majority. According to the present Rwandan government, in that year "the Catholic Church encourages Gregoire Kayibanda and his associates to form political parties ... to champion 'Bahutu interests'".

In 1959 "PARMEHUTU (Le Parti du Mouvement de l'emancipation Hutu) is established under the guidance of the Catholic church by the proponents of delayed independence. PARMEHUTU was also openly sectarian and anti-Batutsi," again according to the Rwandan government. The same year, the first massacres of thousands of Tutsi is organised by radicalised Hutus, "under Belgian supervision".

In contemporary Rwanda, politically dominated by Tutsis and moderate Hutus, questions about the Catholic Church's role in the polarisation of Rwandans, in its extreme leading towards the 1994 genocide, are openly debated. In Rwanda, before the genocide called "Africa's most Christian country," over 50 percent of the population is Roman Catholic. Some 12 percent belong to other Christian societies.

As in most African ex-colonies, the missionaries in Rwanda also embarked on a policy of divide and rule, in close cooperation with the colonial administration. In the Belgian Trust Territories of Rwanda and Burundi this meant creating the ethnicities of Hutu and Tutsi and promoting the Hutu majority against the ruling Tutsi.

The Catholic Church, effectively supporting the creation of a Hutu identity and nationalism, thus became part of the Hutu movement. The mission was rewarded by mass conversions of Rwandan Hutus, making Catholicism the dominant religion in Rwanda. As the radical Hutus gained power in Rwanda at independence in 1962, Catholic and other clergymen found themselves with personal friends in all levels of governance and with good access to the centres of power.

[Simon_Jester]

I want to be clear. Christians have no doubt that Jesus would condemn Obama. The likelihood of that actually being the case is, to some extent, unimportant. Could a good public relations campaign be made to take advantage of the interpretation you offer, tugging on Christian heartstrings? Probably. I imagine nobody in the White House has much thought about it.

Wait, what?

Is this some sort of definition I'm not aware of, where the essential catechism of Christianity involves belief in salvation through Christ, faith in God, et cetera, et cetera... and disapproving of Barack Obama? That makes no sense whatsoever.

I am know quite a few individuals I cannot distinguish from Christians who would not for a moment agree that "Jesus would condemn Obama." Are you telling me they are not Christians? Why?

[Yona]

I want to be clear. Christians have no doubt that Jesus would condemn Obama. The likelihood of that actually being the case is, to some extent, unimportant. Could a good public relations campaign be made to take advantage of the interpretation you offer, tugging on Christian heartstrings? Probably. I imagine nobody in the White House has much thought about it.

Wait, what?

Is this some sort of definition I'm not aware of, where the essential catechism of Christianity involves belief in salvation through Christ, faith in God, et cetera, et cetera... and disapproving of Barack Obama? That makes no sense whatsoever.

I am know quite a few individuals I cannot distinguish from Christians who would not for a moment agree that "Jesus would condemn Obama." Are you telling me they are not Christians? Why?

I too would like clarification on this. Just exactly is the reason that Jesus would condemn Obama ?

In all my 63 years, and I've never heard a more bull shit, 100% WRONG statement.

These must be some strange Christian sect I've never heard of.

BTW, how do you come to speak for ALL Christians ?