The Ten Commandments Resurface as the Personhood Amendment

Dec 31 2010 Published by under Featured News, Issues, Republican Party

Take a good look: this is the Constitution of the future

Okay, I admit this is really not news. The entire Christian fundamentalist movement(s) has as its goal “restoring” a Biblical society that never existed and basically turning back the clock to the “good old days” when the Church could punish with fiery death anyone who disagreed with it.

What the AFA has done is to promote a comprehensive agenda for this return. Supporters call it a “Personhood Amendment” which is a very positive-sounding name for something that is positively medieval in construction and intent. After all, these Christofascists aren’t really all that interested in persons if they’re gay, or Muslim, or pagan, or feminist. A lot of people, if the AFA and its cohorts on the religious right had its way, would lose their personhood.

The personhood amendment was already tried in Colorado. Amendment 62, “would have banned abortion, many forms of birth control and embryonic stem cell research in the state.”

They have managed to get the Personhood Amendment on the ballot in Mississippi for 2011 to coincide with the gubernatorial elections. According to, “two prior efforts in 2005 and 2007 failed to win enough support to get the question before voters.” It reads as follows:

Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Mississippi: SECTION 1. Article III of the constitution of the state of Mississippi is hearby amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION TO READ: Section 33. Person defined. As used in this Article III of the state constitution, “The term ‘person’ or ‘persons’ shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof.” This initiative shall not require any additional revenue for implementation.

One problem is that the state’s Constitution doesn’t allow voter referendums to alter the Bill of Rights (maybe they should start calling it the Bill of Restrictions – or better, the Ten Commandments). Not at all certain how they intend to get through that except by pulling a “Dubya” and simply ignoring the Constitution. One happy coincidence for these medieval advocates: the American Family Association (AFA) is headquartered in Mississippi.

Matt Friedeman of the AFA’s American Family Radio said that if the proposal succeeds in 2011, he hopes it would lead the way to the criminalization of abortion across the country:

“So what we’re hoping for here is that one of these initiatives will be taken all the way to the Supreme Court and they’ll have to decide at that point what to do with it. And hopefully at that juncture we have a pro-life majority, and you never know from year to year to year what’s gonna happen there, but we hope we have a pro-life majority and we hope the day comes when Roe v. Wade is wiped off the books and we can go back to the states. Maybe even, if God would allow, to get a pro-life amendment for the whole country.”

Bryan Fischer used the opportunity to push his usual violations of the Constitution and his vision of a medieval-style theocracy:

“One of the things we look for from our political leaders is we want to see them work to align the public policy of our country with the standards of the word of God, that’s what we want, we want an alignment. We’re not talking about a theocracy where the clergy rules this country; we’re talking about statesmen, both men and women, who are committed as a matter of moral conviction to align the public policy of the United States with the word of God.”

This is not just a move to ban abortion and overturn Roe vs. Wade but an attack on science and on the Constitution. It is also a violation of the Constitution because it promotes the viewpoint of a specific religion. It is the insistence at the heart of these amendments that a Christian viewpoint be the only relevant viewpoint that is the most objectionable. Most of these people, if polled, would likely react violently to any suggestion that Islamic principles govern the process; so why should Christian principles be seen as any less objectionable?
If you go to a site like you find the following rationale:

Throughout the history of the Church the doctrinal teaching of the “Sanctity of Life” (Genesis 1:26-27) has been the belief that Man is created Imago Dei (Latin: in the image of God) and therefore has worth at all stages of life. This is the bedrock of Western civilization’s understanding and practice of human dignity.

Besides being misleading (human life was valued before Christianity) the statement is also demonstrably false. Christians slaughtered human beings of all ages with happy abandon for nearly 2000 years before the European Enlightenment freed the Western World of some of the Church’s darker practices – big killers too, like crusades, inquisitions, and witch-burnings – you know,  real pro-life activities.

Les Riely, sponsor of the Mississippi amendment, revealingly says,

Isaiah 59 tells us that ,’ the LORD’S hand is not shortened, that it cannot save; neither his ear heavy, that it cannot hear’ so we first give all praise and honor to our Lord Jesus Christ for hearing our prayers and giving us the victory in this round.

It’s Jesus this, Jesus that. Jesus isn’t in the Constitution. Neither is Christianity, neither are the Ten Commandments.

It’s a little late now to try to convince us you really do value life. Did you really have to kill millions to make that point? If all life is sacred, why do women have to die to save a fetus if her life is endangered by her pregnancy? That would have been the effect of the “life-loving” Colorado amendment.

There is no reason at all once you cast aside Christian insistence on being considered “True Religion” and the concomitant assertion that only their viewpoint is valid, which is exactly the determination government is not permitted to make according to the Constitution.

It is not as if Christians are being told they cannot be Christians, or hold firm to their religious convictions. No one is forcing Christians to have sex outside of marriage, or to have abortions, or to marry a person of the same sex, or to accept stem cell treatment. If you don’t believe it’s right, don’t do it. You have that right. But you positively do not have the right to force these beliefs on others by legislating them into law. The Constitution forbids this. The Constitution is about granting and defending rights; the Ten Commandments are about restricting them. Let’s not confuse them.

19 responses so far

Federal Court Says Murkowski In, Miller Out

Dec 30 2010 Published by under Featured News, Issues, Republican Party

I wrote the other day about Joe Miller’s refusal to accept defeat in his race against Lisa Murkowski, who was the victim of a Palin-Tea Party Express ambush before the primary. She came back strong in a write-in campaign and edged Joe Miller in the general election.

Murkowski had the grace to accept defeat in the primary. Joe Miller hasn’t been able to demonstrate he even knows what grace is, let alone intends to demonstrate it. It’s not for lack of opportunity:

Joe just lost out on his federal case – the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out his lawsuit on Tuesday, just a week after the Alaska Supreme Court did the same. The federal judge said Miller hadn’t raised any federal issues and that he would not second guess the Alaska Supreme Court. Take that, Sarah Palin! You brought in out-of-state money to beat Lisa Murkowski but the much-hated federal government won’t interfere in what is the state’s business.

How that must hurt.

Miller of course, is still whining:

“I am disappointed with the federal court’s ruling today. The U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause presented the most significant constitutional issue. Specifically, should the courts be required to follow the legislature’s standard for the selection of U.S. senators or create their own? My legal team believes that the clear language of the Election Clause as well as precedent support our claims. Thus, we are evaluating the ruling and determining what our next step should be.”

Miller can always appeal. But that won’t stop Lisa Murkowski from taking her seat in the 112th Congress on January 5 because the federal judge lifted the hold on the certification of the election.

It’s a done deal. Only Joe Miller seems unaware of it.

Miller beat Murkowski in the August GOP primary but lost to her in the November election. The Alaska Supreme Court ruled against him. A federal judge has ruled against him. More importantly, the people of Alaska ruled against him by casting more ballots for Lisa Murkowski.

Murkowski told the Anchorage Daily News

“This is pretty great news. It means that I can breathe a sigh of relief knowing that next week Alaska will have two senators in the United States Senate and there would not be any lapse that could have happened had certification been held up very much longer.”

She has reason to be happy.

“I have had a bottle of champagne in just about every refrigerator where I have visited over this Christmas holiday, and I haven’t been able to release that cork yet.”

What Miller will do is anyone’s guess. Unlike one of Palin’s other favorites, he’s an employable individual, being an attorney and all, and won’t have to steal from his campaign funds to get by, or form a pac to give himself a paycheck. Even so, he really wanted that seat and he shows no signs of giving up trying to find a way to weasel it out of the winner’s hands.

I suggested last time Miller hold man up. I won’t suggest any of us hold our breaths.

16 responses so far

The GOP’s Anti-Constitutional Amendment

Dec 28 2010 Published by under Featured News, Issues, Republican Party

What does the Republican Party stand for? They claim fiscal conservatism but this is demonstrably untrue, as the history of the past half-century demonstrates. They talk a lot about social conservatism but sex, drug, and prostitution scandals are no more a stranger to Republicans than to Democrats. They claim to represent the voice of the people but seem unconcerned about what the people want. They talk about the evils of pork but embrace earmarks with both hands, or want to “re-define” them so they can have them while speaking out against them. They talk about the sanctity of the Constitution but when they know anything about it at all (which is seldom enough) they oppose it at every turn. They talk about America right or wrong but if they oppose the Constitution, can they really claim to support America?

The GOP has become increasingly parasitical over the past decade and it has done a better job of enriching its individual members than running the country. Two wars, the economy in the tank, and no answers but more of the same.

Then there is the little issue of secessionism. Cloaked in talk of the Tenth Amendment, we could still hear the seditious talk of “Second Amendment” remedies and an extreme interpretation of States Rights that can only mean secessionism – though the word itself has been mentioned a time or two. Secession: how American is that?

The federal government established by the Constitution has become the Great Satan in Republican terminology. The federal government is out to get us; it is taking away our rights. But the Constitution was written to curb the rights-stealing behavior of local government, those same state legislatures now complaining most stridently about it. Any surprise there?

The problem is the Constitution itself. It says something Republicans don’t want it to say. It says everyone is equal before the law. In an age of reactionary white Christian privilege, this is most inconvenient. The Constitutionally established federal government is there to protect our rights – and to protect us from ourselves – the “excesses of democracy” to use an 18th century term for the problem.

That leaves the GOP in a bit of a bind, trying to seem pro-America while being anti-America. The Constitution as it exists has to go. Some have proposed repeal of all amendments, which is of course an absurdity since the first ten (the Bill of Rights) were attached to the Constitution by the same people who wrote and ratified the Constitution. It was, of course, understood that other amendments were likely and indeed, would prove necessary. The Founding Fathers knew they could not look far enough into the future to make a static document.

Yet Republicans insist on reinterpreting history to mean that the original Constitution should stand as written – though of course, they like the Second Amendment and the Tenth. How those are somehow holy and others profane – the 16th, for example, which authorized a federal income tax, or the 17th, which allowed for direct election of senators, taking it away from the states, or even the 19th, which gave women the vote) is unclear. We don’t all get what we want. The framers of the Constitution did not. James Madison, who right or wrongly came to be known as the Father of the Constitution, did not.

Now some Republicans are proposing a constitutional amendment like none we have ever seen, a sort of anti-constitutional amendment, one that would permit the states the Constitution was intended to curb and force into line, to ignore the Constitution by voting to overturn any act of Congress.

It was first proposed by a Georgetown law professor, Randy E. Barnett, in 2009 as a means of “redressing the imbalance of power between state and federal power.” Legislative leaders in 12 states support it (Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, South Carolina, Texas and Utah, and Virginia); Eric Cantor, the incoming House Majority Leader, backs it.

There are two ways this can be made to happen:

  1. Both houses of Congress must pass it;
  2. It can be proposed at a convention called by Congress if 2/3 of the states petition for it.

If either of these conditions obtain, three-quarters (thirty eight) of the states must then approve the amendment.

Eric Cantor puts the case for the amendment thusly:

“Washington has grown far too large and has become far too intrusive, reaching into nearly every aspect of our lives. Massive expenditures like the stimulus, unconstitutional mandates like the takeover of health care and intrusions into the private sector like the auto bailouts have threatened the very core of the American free market. The repeal amendment would provide a check on the ever-expanding federal government, protect against Congressional overreach and get the government working for the people again, not the other way around.”

What Cantor chooses to ignore is the danger of those local “excesses of democracy” feared by the Constitution’s framers, notably, James Madison. A local government can be as intrusive as a federal and can trample rights just as thoroughly. The Constitution is designed to secure our rights even if local majorities favor stripping us of them. Look, for example, at Proposition 8 in California. The State of California might vote to take away the constitutionally-guaranteed rights of a particular group (usually a minority of course, ethnic, religious, gender, etc) but the Constitution says that you can’t do that.

The Constitution is not the enemy and therefore, the federal government is not the enemy. True, any government can be oppressive, but Republican rhetoric does not recognize this possibility. They have made the federal government the enemy when the real threat to our liberty comes from the same source feared by the framers of the Constitution. They recognized the need for a strong central government, the same strong central government the GOP now wants to dismantle in order to apparently return to the days of the Articles of Confederation when the states functioned as independent nations as separated divided by conflicting local interests.

Our government functions on a system of checks and balances. The states already have a check on excesses of the federal government: it’s called Congress, the members of which are all elected by the people of the individual states to represent their interests.

When States get to chose which laws they will obey and not obey, the United States will have come to an end. They already get a say in the process when they elect their representatives to Congress. That is how it was meant to be, and it has worked for over two-hundred years. Ironically, groups that support this “repeal amendment” (Barnett calls it a “federalism amendment”) claim to want to “restore the Constitution” when what they are proposing is exactly the opposite. It is time to recognize the GOP for what it is: the forces of anarchy, the same that nearly destroyed us from 1861-65, threatening to tear our nation apart.

7 responses so far

Joe Miller Says He’ll Hold His Breath Until They Let Him Win

Dec 28 2010 Published by under Featured News, Issues, Republican Party

Joe Miller and Lisa Murkowski

Fairbanks attorney and would-be totalitarian strongman Joe Miller apparently will not try to perform a citizens arrest on Lisa Murkowski. He will, however, take her to federal court for having the audacity to defeat him in the general election after losing the August 24 primary in a write-in campaign.

Never mind that it was the Tea Party that originally came in to steal Murkowski’s seat out from under her.

We all remember Karl Rove’s judgment:

“Absolutely no she can’t win. Under the law, you have to carefully spell the name exactly correct, now everyone go to your pencil and paper and write the name ‘Murkowski’ and see if you got it right.”

“No, she’s going to lose,” he said.

And Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) used a Tea Party fundraiser to call her a “big-tent hypocrite” and said she had betrayed the conservative cause.

Republican cannibalism at its best – or worst.

But she didn’t lose. She outraged the Tea Party by actually winning.

And what neither Karl Rove nor Joe Miller (nor, most certainly, Sarah Palin) reckoned on was the innate fairness of the process. The state Division of Elections established guidelines before counting even began that the voter’s intent had to count when writing-in a vote.

God forbid fairness should enter into the democratic process. “We can’t have that!” the Tea Party says.

So Miller lost fair and square. That’s not just a liberal writer saying that, it’s the Alaska Supreme Court, the law of the land. But that is Joe Miler’s whining lament: she cheated! Egads, people misspelled her name. Has she no shame claiming the victory?

The Alaskan Supreme Court ruled against him. The message from the voters was “You lost, Joe.” The message from the highest court in the state was the same: “You lost, Joe.”

“There are no remaining issues raised by Miller that prevent this election from being certified.”

But Joe claims that the sanctity of the election process is at stake. Meaning, he can’t possibly have lost. Perhaps God promised him a victory or something. After all, he promised one to Sarah Palin too on the eve of the ’08 Election Day.

Apparently, those nasty feds aren’t so nasty when Joe’s victory is at stake. To hell with the State of Alaska. What do the feds say? Does the Tea Party have no shame, throwing the state under the bus and trying to trump with the federal courts?

Did the world just turn upside down?

I’m unclear as to how losing an election fair and square violates the sanctity of the democratic process but then, I’ve never performed a citizens arrest on somebody who asked me a question.

For the record, this is Joe’s reasoning:

“After careful consideration and seeking the counsel of people whose opinion I respect and trust, I have decided that the federal case must go forward. The integrity of the election is vital and ultimately the rule of law must be our standard. Nevertheless, I have also decided to withdraw our opposition to the certification of the election, ensuring that Alaska will have its full delegation seated when the 112th Congress convenes next month.”

What a guy. Such a gesture of magnanimity!

There really wasn’t much magnanimity evident in Joe’s official protest. As his spokesman Randy DeSota said on Wednesday,

“We are disappointed the Alaska Supreme Court has ignored the plain text of Alaska law and allowed the Division of Elections to effectively amend the state election code without even giving the public an opportunity for notice and comment.”

Of course, the Alaskan Supreme Court made just that ruling, that state law had not been violated. End of story.

Not so, says Joe.

Of course, none of this surprises Lisa Murkowski, who has already been exposed to the limitless, mindless hate and nihilism of Tea Party politics. Her campaign fully expected Joe Miller to be a big crybaby.

Perhaps the most amusing aspect of this whole situation is that with or without the contested votes, Joe Miller has lost. Lisa Murkowski ended up with a lead of 10,328 votes.  Joe says 8,159 of those votes can’t count. Even without them, however, Lisa Murkowski still has a 2,169 vote lead.

There is a great deal wrong with this picture. There is the Republican betrayal of Lisa Murkowski later reinterpreted as a betrayal by Lisa Murkowski, another Sarah Palin demagogue who like Christine O’Donnell showed himself completely unequal to the office to which he sought election (a real chip off the old block), and then, when the people had spoken, when the State of Alaska had spoken, these Tea Party tenthers turn around and appeal to the hated feds to overturn the state. We’ll leave aside for the moment the sheer childishness of Miller’s position on this. What does he do for an encore? Hold his breath?

No, take your medicine Joe. In Palin-speak, find your cojones and man up. Vox populi: The people have spoken. Isn’t that supposed to be what the Tea Party is all about? But it isn’t, is it Joe? It’s not about what the people want: it’s about what you want, what Sarah Palin wants, what Christine O’Donnell wants – a free lunch.

13 responses so far

The U.S. Army – Instrument of Holy War

Dec 27 2010 Published by under Featured News, Issues

Livonian Knights or the U.S. Army?

How can anyone forget the Tenth Crusade? Not in your history books? Look at recent history. Sure, the (numbered) crusades officially ended at Number IX in the 13th century and the so-called “northern crusades” in the 16th, but George W. Bush and his evangelical administration resurrected the whole idea and brought Christian holy war into the 21st century when he attacked Iraq.

The secular army of the secular United States government became the instrument of this holy war, and if Christian fundamentalists are out to get the rest of us in the civilian world, the military is a bigger (and easier) target. Our government and the bureaucracy which supports it is full of dominionist Christians who would like to see nothing better than a theocracy and the destruction of the modern liberal democracy brought into existence by our Founding Fathers and sustained by the secular document known as the United States Constitution.

We’ve been told that atheists are not really citizens; that only Christians are fit to hold public office – despite the Constitution’s mandate against religious tests; and that pagans, secularists and others are to blame for 9/11. Soldiers are far from immune to these same attacks, and this expectation has been well illustrated by the Air Force Academy’s (repeated) scandals regarding proselytizing by evangelical elements in that branch of the service; the Bush-era rejection of Wiccan pentacle gravestones; by Marine mass baptisms; military-sponsored Bible distributions in Afghanistan; and by the punishment of a group of soldiers who refused to attend a Christian musical concert.

An American soldier is increasingly expected to be a Christian crusader.

Welcome to the Kingdom of God, sponsored by the U.S. Army – it’s not just a job, it’s a holy war.

When did this happen? Neither spirituality nor Christian faith is on the list of army values; loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, and personal courage are. The “Warrior Ethos” asserts

I will always place the mission first.

I will never accept defeat.

I will never quit.

I will never leave a fallen comrade.

I don’t see “I will be a Christian” anywhere on that list. You won’t find it in the Soldier’s Creed either. So what’s going on?

Sgt. Justin Griffith, an American soldiers serving at Fort Bragg, NC, last week revealed a mandatory U.S. Army survey called the “Soldier Fitness Tracker” which tracks a soldier’s fitness to serve. One would expect that the army would have certain requirements. After all, not everyone is cut out to be a soldier. We’d expect physical requirements in particular and a modicum of intelligence as well as some character.

But spirituality?

The Comprehensive Soldier Fitness Program is supposed to “create an Army of balanced, healthy, self-confident Soldiers, Families, and Army civilians whose resilience and total fitness enables them to thrive in an era of high operational tempo and persistent conflict.”

AmericanAtheists offers a sampling of questions from the test:

Answer in terms of whether the statement describes how you actually live your life.

I am a spiritual person.

My life has a lasting meaning.

I believe that in some way my life is closely connected to all humanity and all the world.

The job I am doing in the military has lasting meaning.

I believe there is a purpose for my life.

The author of that piece in AmericanAtheists got this analysis of her answers:

“Spiritual fitness is an area of possible difficulty for you. You may lack a sense of meaning and purpose in your life. At times, it is hard for you to make sense of what is happening to you and others around you. You may not feel connected to something larger than yourself. You may question your beliefs, principles, and values. Nevertheless, who you are and what you do matter. There are things to do to provide more meaning and purpose in your life. Improving your spiritual fitness should be an important goal. Change is possible, and the relevant self-development training modules will be helpful. If you need further help, please do not hesitate to seek out help from the people you care about and trust – strong people always do. Be patient in your development as it will take time to improve in this area. Still, persistence is key and you will improve here if you make this area a priority.”

It’s not just the LBGT community that has found itself unwanted by the military, but non-Christians as well.

Sane folks have taken notice of this absurd practice. One blogger who found himself in opposition to this testing, Al Stefanelli, has had his reaction go viral.

And we should take notice, all of us, to this flagrant and unconstitutional promotion of Christianity.

In the FortLeavenworthLamp of June 10, 2010, in an article titled “Spiritual fitness as important as physical fitness,” Chaplain (Maj.) Charles J. Atanasio tells us that

Physical fitness requires consistent training, a schedule, proper nutrition and rest. Spiritual fitness follows very similar principles. Spiritual fitness requires good habits. Spiritual fitness requires similar discipline and effort.

Spiritual fitness is a wonderful gift of God. For each of us to obtain spiritual fitness, we must invest in and commit to a consistent and faithful relationship with God.

Say what? First of all, what does one have to do with the other? And assuming you have spiritual fitness, there is no requirement that it have to do with Chaplain Atanasio’s god. There are other forms and sources of spiritual fitness, as your trusty Heathen author here asserts. Carl Sagan found spiritual sustenance in science, as he writes in his 1996 magnum opus, The Demon-Haunted World.

The oft-cited claim that there are no atheists in foxholes is false; there is no more need that soldiers be Christians than politicians be Christians. There is no demand that Americans trust in a god at all, Christian or otherwise. Religion does not make a soldier, as I earlier pointed out it neither causes nor cures societal ills, it does not cure criminal behavior, and it does not make an American.

14 responses so far

Islam4UK and a Holy War of Words

Dec 26 2010 Published by under Featured News, Issues

The Message of a Real Grinch: Islam4UK

Yes, I know it’s a surprise. Fundamentalist Christians hate Islam and well…fundamentalist Muslims hate Christianity. We have seen this dynamic at work in the United States since 2001 and with renewed vigor over the past two years. It’s as if a perpetual state of Jihad/Crusade exists in the minds of extremists at both ends, leaving the rest of us to grow dizzy from the salvos fired past our heads.

But what is happening with Christmas in the United States is merely a byproduct of religious diversity. “Merry Christmas” as a slogan does not appeal to everybody – only to Christians. Retailers want to reach to the broadest market possible; government can’t promote one religion over another. It’s absurd to expect non-Christians to wish people a “Merry Christmas” and as I have often pointed out, it’s not even really a Christian holiday, but a Pagan. It’s not Jesus’ birthday at all – it’s Mithras’ birthday or that of any of a half-dozen other Pagan gods. Nobody owns the period around the Winter Solstice; nobody can.

But though there is no war on Christmas in the United States, the Daily Mail reports that an Islamic group in the United Kingdom has declared war.

Behind the campaign against Christmas is a militant Islamic fundamentalist group known as Islam4UK, which was earlier this year banned (on 14 January 2010) by Home Secretary Alan Johnson. The group claimed, on its website, that it had “been established by sincere Muslims as a platform to propagate the supreme Islamic ideology within the United Kingdom as a divine alternative to man-made law” to “convince the British public about the superiority of Islam…thereby changing public opinion in favour of Islam in order to transfer the authority and power…to the Muslims in order to implement the Sharee’ah (here in Britain)”

Wow, sounds like any of a dozen fundamentalist Christian groups in this country, doesn’t it? How proud Abraham must be of his squabbling children!

Though it has become a crime to be a member of the group, the group’s members are still active and their new plan was to put up posters attacking Christmas saying that the holiday is to be blamed, the Daily Mail says, “for rape, teenage pregnancies, abortion, promiscuity, crime and paedophilia.”

Sounds like an Islamicized Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson or any number of fundamentalist hucksters. Their goals seem as misguided and unrealistic as Christian fundamentalist goals in this country but similarly motivated. “They hope the campaign” reveals the Daily Mail, “will help ‘destroy Christmas’ in this country and lead to Britons converting to Islam instead.”

But our main attack is on the fruits of Christmas, things like alcohol abuse and promiscuity that increase during Christmas and all the other evils these lead to such as abortion, domestic violence and crime.

‘We hope that out campaign will make people realise that Islam is the only way to avoid this and convert.”

Only a religious fanatic’s brain can work this way. What are sane people to make of this? Really, it’s fodder not only for Christian fundamentalists but for atheists stressing the evils of religion.

But Christianity is no more the cause of the social ills listed than it is the cure.

The campaign’s mastermind is a 27-year-old Wahhabist named Abu Rumaysah, once a campaigner for Sharia Law in the UK. Mr. Rumaysah has the same disdain for Christianity as a fundamentalist Christian in this country does for say, paganism: “Christmas is a lie and as Muslims it is our duty to attack it.”

All something like this does is make people angry. Its one thing to advertise your own religion, your own god, but it’s another to antagonize others by attacking theirs, particularly in a season they hold to be holy. What if a fundamentalist group were to attack an Islamic holy day, like Ramadan, for the same reason?

You can imagine the outrage of the entire Islamic world.

Holy days are to be celebrated, not attacked. Nobody has the right to expect anyone else to celebrate a holiday that is, to them, a non-holiday, but by the same token it is not too much to ask people to tolerate the religious traditions (or non-religious traditions – secular holidays are just as valid) of others. That tolerance – born of diversity – is the essence of the modern liberal democracy and it is for that reason that fundamentalist religions are incompatible with our western form of government – any kind of fundamentalist religion.

Muslims should no more use Christmas to attack Christianity than Christians should use Christmas to attack secularism, atheism, or other religions. I say this as someone who is a pagan to Christians, an infidel to Muslims: the baby Jesus is not a hammer that should be used to smash things.

Don’t like Christmas? Don’t celebrate it. It’s really not all that hard.

Fundamentalist Christians in this country are used to denouncing secularism with the same vehemence as that expressed by Islam4UK. Where Christians blame the absence of religion (by which they mean, the absence of Christianity) the Islamic campaign blames Christianity itself. The shoe, it seems, is on the other foot.

Both attitudes are the result of extremes. It’s no more attractive to have Christmas shoved down our throats than it is to see it condemned as “evil” simply because it isn’t Islamic.

It’s sad to see campaigns like this and similar campaigns in the U.S. by Christian groups. Neither has any moral high ground and their claim to an absolute truth is obvious only to them. The rest of us could laugh at their hubris or perhaps weep for it, or even fear it, and maybe all three reactions are appropriate.

The real evil here isn’t Christmas, it isn’t even Christianity or Islam – it’s religious fundamentalism of all types, and that, perhaps, is what we should be erecting posters against at this – or any other – time of year. This campaign has shown, as others in the U.S. have shown, that holy war can be waged with words and images as well as with bombs, but the real message here is that it shouldn’t be waged at all.

8 responses so far

Civil Liberties Not Part of the Republican Plan for America

Dec 24 2010 Published by under Featured News, Issues

Jeff Sessions, R-AL

This is no surprise to liberals, of course. We’ve known it for some time. Repression and authoritarianism has been in the air for some time – it was not invented by George W. Bush – it merely coalesced under his administration. The result was a crushing blow to Americans’ civil liberties, including suspension of habeas corpus on October 17, 2006. Bush’s actions were, in Sarah Palin’s words, a “refudiation” of the Constitution and all it stands for.

Article I, Section 9, clause 2 of the Constitution states,

“The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

Obviously, the United States had not been invaded, and there was no rebellion. But when you treat the Constitution like a loose set of guidelines you can fudge a little.

But habeas corpus is only a single example, There are many ways in which the Republican Party has chipped away at our civil liberties.

You can search the news and speeches and press releases but you won’t see much being said about civil liberties by Republican politicians or pundits. What you will see are efforts to discourage voting, to disenfranchise voters, especially minorities, but now also by wishing to restrict the franchise to property owners; the restriction of constitutionally-guaranteed rights to gays and lesbians, racial equality, women’s reproductive rights, and the destruction of the wall of separation between church and state.

Still, it is surprising when the Republicans themselves admit their abhorrence of civil liberties, as did Senator Jefferson Beauregard “Jeff” Sessions III (R-AL)  of the Senate Judiciary Committee (in fact, its ranking Republican) who denounced the American Civil Liberties Union on the Senate floor this week.

He was concerned, he said, about Obama judicial appointees who have what he termed “ACLU DNA.” It might help here to know that Senator Sessions was the National Journal’s fifth-most conservative U.S. Senator in their March 2007 Conservative/Liberal Rankings, just below DeMint, SC, Bunning, KY, Cornyn, TX and Kyl, AZ. “August” company indeed.

“[T]he administration,” he ranted, “needs to understand that this is going to be a more contentious matter if we keep seeing the ACLU chromosome as part of this process.”

For the record, the ACLU defends the civil liberties of ALL Americans. That includes, despite right-wing propaganda, the civil liberties of Christians – including defending the right of Christian students to protest against the ACLU at school and the wearing of anti-Islam t-shirts at school. And it also of course, defends Republicans when their civil liberties are challenged.

Some Christians seem to recognize that the ALCU is not evil – that is the title of an article in an evangelical magazine, Christianity Today. But Republicans seem not to recognize this.

It is not a matter of the ACLU taking sides; they did not put themselves against the Republican Party. It is the Republican Party that has put itself against the civil liberties of all Americans.

Civil liberties, you see, are non-denominational. They apply to everyone. And everyone has them; we are all equal before the law according to the Constitution.

And yet, according to Senator Sessions, support of those civil liberties is now as disqualifying as such things as paganism, atheism or Islam or homosexuality, some other notable right-wing shibboleths.

As the ACLU asks, what would the existence of such a thing as ACLU DNA indicate?

A predisposition to defend the rights enshrined in the Constitution for everyone, regardless of their political beliefs? A tendency to think that indefinite detention, religious bigotry and racial profiling are unprincipled and un-American?

An inclination to protect the Constitution and defend the rule of law without exception?

The anti-ACLU atmosphere engendered by Republican rhetoric is reminiscent of the anti-Communist hysteria of the ‘50s. All of us who are old enough remember the old “card-carrying member of the Communist party” rhetoric. As the ACLU says, “We’ve been down this road before. We’ve seen attacks on ‘card-carrying members of the ACLU.’ We can never yield to this kind of intimidation.”

As the ACLU says, “freedom can’t protect itself” and the Republicans have proven they won’t protect it. Apparently it’s not enough to oppose civil liberties and the Constitution, or to be ignorant of them; now you’ve got to denounce them publicly too. That, my friends, is Republican Purity.

Note: The ACLU’s official response to Sessions can be found here.

6 responses so far

Why Progressives are Wrong About Julian Assange

Dec 23 2010 Published by under Featured News, Issues

Since when is the definition for somebody who opposes rape “radical feminist”? Wouldn’t a better and far more accurate term be “decent human being”?

I think so. But that seems to be the consensus among progressives : that those who attack Australian-born whistle-blower Julian Assange are radical feminists, and I suppose by definition then, not really progressives, as if you can’t be both.

And I think a great divide has been exposed by the controversy surrounding the accusations laid against Julian Assange – namely, rape.

The divide I am talking about is that between politics and morality. You can like someone’s politics without approving of their behavior and one should not be tied to the other. When you start to defend somebody’s behavior because you like their politics, it’s difficult to tell whether the tail is not wagging the dog.

Progressives see Assange as a hero. Many of them have ended up siding with him at the expense of the woman he is said to have raped, and by extension, all women. All the old excuses have resurfaced: why did she stay with him, why didn’t she report him, blah, blah, blah. It could not have, given those things, been rape.

As it happens, the left has been split by this situation. Feminists are now at odds with progressives, and rightly so.

Rape is wrong. Period.

Being a counter-culture hero does not excuse it.

For people to whom Assange is a hero there is no limit to suspicion and paranoia. Is it a CIA plot? Are the rape charges coming to light merely in response to his work with WikiLeaks? The timing is suspicious. Michael Moore has defended Assange – he even put up $20,000 in bail money and said the rape inquiry was “stink[ing] to the high heavens”:

This whole thing stinks to the high heavens…. They go after people with this kind of lie and smear…. What they say he did… his condom broke during consensual sex; that is not a crime in Britain. This is all a bunch of hooey, as far as I’m concerned. The man has at least a right to be out of prison while awaiting his hearing.

Keith Olbermann has too, making clear that he also questioned the charges; he even suspended his Twitter account because of the outrage over his interview with Moore. Both are progressives. Both are themselves heroes to many.

Some have called Olbermann’s apology (made 15 hours before suspending his account) a non-apology:

Rape has touched my family, directly and savagely, and if anybody thinks I have addressed it without full sensitivity, then that assessment is the one that counts, and I apologize. But these accusations that I “revealed” an accuser’s identity by retweeting Bianca Jagger’s link, or that I ‘shamed’ an accuser by asking a question about the prosecution of a man governments are trying to bury, or that I do not ‘understand’ charges that have yet to be presented in their final form, reflect exactly the kind of rushing to judgment of which I’m accused, and merit the same kind of apology I have just given.

The sense of it seems to be that rape isn’t really important as long as Assange is engaged in what is seen by progressives as very important work in exposing government lies and cover-ups.

One has to wonder how they would feel if we were talking about their sisters and daughters. Would politics still trump morality? has led the charge against Moore, accusing him of “rape apologism” and I cannot argue with the reasoning. I am more than a little disappointed that progressives can’t seem to separate two very different issues, exposing government secrets and raping women.

If the right-wing often seems unaware of moral standards and ethics, it now seems the left-wing has no moral high ground to stand upon when they utter their denunciations. This, to me, is just another symptom of ideology run amok.

I for one will not marry my morality to ideology. Praise Assange if you feel you must for exposing government secrets but condemn him for rape if he is guilty instead of making defenses for his behavior based on your support of his politics. The two have nothing to do with one another.

Anyone accused of a crime is innocent until proven guilty but right now I would no more trust a jury of progressives to look dispassionately at the case than I would a jury of conservatives.

Are political centrists the only sane people left on the planet?

Finally, I wanted to say a word about attacks and criticisms leveled here against PoliticusUSA’s Sarah Jones, a fellow writer and editor. I am astounded that a charge of “feminist” (as a pejorative no less!) immediately attaches itself to her and moreover, invalidates any points made, however sound the logic. It is as if feminism is a poison pill that automatically kills any argument made, but neither conservative Ultra Patriotism™ nor Progressive hero-worship bear the same stigma. Why is feminism to be discounted, but no other bias, if indeed feminism is a bias?

Why are so many people afraid of feminism? Indeed, why are so many people willing to kill mothers for the sake of fetuses and to let women be raped for the sake of heroism in exposing government secrets? I confess I don’t understand. Why does one thing become irrelevant because of another? Does right or wrong change as a matter of convenience? Does it sometimes apply, and sometimes not? Is it now one thing, and now another?

In the end, there are those who will devalue Assange no matter what because of what he has done politically and there are those who would overvalue him for what he has done politically, as though that has anything to do with what he might have done to a woman. I am not going to argue the rights and wrongs of WikiLeaks because it is irrelevant to the discussion. We must look at the two issues as being completely separate because they are two separate issues. It’s a shame that so many progressives and conservatives seem unable to see the forest for the trees.

25 responses so far

John McCain and Why Sgt. Coleman Bean Had to Die

Dec 22 2010 Published by under Featured News, Issues

Sgt. Coleman Bean

The Republican Party in general is more than willing to sell patriotism and rah-rah the boys as they march off to war but it doesn’t seem to care much about them afterward. They’re a disposable commodity. Use them and toss them aside.  As Disabled American Veterans spokesman Dave Autry puts it, “every single initiative to support veterans was defeated in Congress until the Democrats took control of both houses in January 2007.

John McCain, who is often called a war hero, has always portrayed himself a staunch supporter of the U.S. military and of national security – and a supporter of American veterans – which is what you would expect from a veteran. Especially a guy who spent so much time in a prisoner of war camp. You’d think he’d understand what these guys deal with on a daily basis, both while in a war zone and when they come home and try to cope with their experiences as they make the return to civilian life.

The truth is rather different, as it so often is where John McCain is concerned; John McCain, who epitomizes the bait and switch. This is what you see, but this is most definitely not what you get.

As U.S. Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) discovered to his dismay when he tried to do something about it. When a New Jersey Veteran committed suicide, and Rep. Holt found out the man had difficulty getting counseling for his problems, he came up with a solution. He introduced legislation to address the problem – the Sgt. Coleman S. Bean Individual Ready Reserve Suicide Prevention Act of 2010. “A serious gap exists in military suicide prevention efforts – a gap that needlessly cost the life of one young Central New Jersey resident,” he said.

Coleman Bean, for whom the bill was named, served with the 173rd Airborne in Iraq. When he returned home from his tour in 2004, he was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Despite this, he was sent back to Iraq for a second tour in 2007, and a third tour of duty was a possibility, according to his family. Instead, he found out he was ineligible as a serving member of the military to obtain counseling. He suffered from his traumas, and at last, the 25-year-old soldier killed himself.

Sgt. Coleman Bean

The bill would have made $20 million available to the Department of Veterans Affairs budget to be spent on direct advertising and online social media “for suicide prevention outreach.” It would also have required the Department of Defense Individual Ready Reserve members receive “a counseling call from properly trained personnel not less than once every 90 days so long as the servicemember remains a member of the IRR.”

Sounds like a good plan. Find a problem; find a solution. But it wasn’t so easy.  As reports,

Last week, Holt had fresh anger when he learned that his bill had been eliminated from the final version of the Defense Appropriations Act presented to both houses of Congress.

The cause of the bill’s elimination? None other than John McCain: “I talked to Sen. McCain over the phone. He said he blocked it and he will continue to block it,” said Holt.

John didn’t see a problem, you see. It’s only a veteran. We don’t need him anymore. John’s only interested in soldiers before they get sent to a war zone. And they don’t have a problem in Arizona, he said. New Jersey veterans matter less to John than those from his own state.  And calling the soldiers to see how they are doing?

“He [McCain] said having these counselors check in with the Reservists every few months this way overreaching,” said Holt of a phone conversation with McCain. “I asked him in what sense it was overreaching. Surely he didn’t think there wasn’t a problem, did he? I must say I don’t understand it.”

Overreaching? This is hardly the first time McCain has let veterans down, and his lack of concern for their health has long been noted by veterans groups.

As far back as the 2000 South Carolina primary he was accused of ignoring veterans’ groups. According to the Army Times, in 2008 McCain got a grade of “D” from Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America based on his voting record. In that year, says, McCain “supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans just 20 percent of the time” and as the Washington Independent reported in 2008,

Though polls show that Sen. John McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, enjoys solid support from veterans, some vet organizations are sharply critical of the Arizona senator’s legislative voting record on issues important to them. They have lambasted him for voting against the 21st Century G.I. bill; against providing more money for veterans’ health care, and for a proposal that many regard as an effort to privatize their care.

As the Independent goes on to note,

This is not the first time that McCain’s voting record on veterans’ issues has been criticized — particularly on health care. According to an AFL-CIO TV ad, broadcast in six battleground states in late July and early August, McCain talks a lot about supporting veterans but repeatedly votes against their interests.

It turns out that John McCain has a habit “of voting against appropriating money for veterans’ health care and disability payments.  As relates,

According to Disabled American Veterans, McCain voted almost a dozen separate times against spending additional money on veterans’ health care in 2005 and 2006, even as hundreds of thousands of soldiers and Marines were returning from Iraq and Afghanistan and filing disability claims with the Department of Veterans Affairs., a non-profit, non-partisan, consumer advocacy project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, says that McCain is being treated unduly harshly because he did later vote for other bills that benefited veterans:

  1. “In 2004, he voted against an increase of $1.8 billion, voted for an increase of $1.2 billion passed by unanimous consent,”
  2. “In 2005, he voted against an increase of $2.8 billion, but voted for a $410-million increase.”
  3. “In 2006, he voted against a $1.5 billion increase, but later voted for an $823 million increase.”
  4. In 2007 he voted against a 2007 supplemental spending bill for the Iraq War that ended up being vetoed by President Bush – a bill that included $1.77 billion in additional funding for veterans’ health care benefits. Afterward, McCain voted for slightly more money, $1.79 billion, to be used for the same purpose.

Of course, this money applied to veterans and would not have helped Individual Ready Reserve Sgt. Coleman Bean, as he found out. McCain told the American Legion convention in 2008 that he voted against these bills because they contained pork

“If it’s me sitting in the Oval Office…those wasteful spending bills are going the way of all earmarks — straight back to Congress with a veto. When we make it clear to Congress that no earmark bill will be signed into law, that will save many billions of dollars that can be applied to essential priorities, and above all to the care of our veterans.”

Then why did you let Sgt. Coleman Bean die, Senator McCain? Pork? McCain’s excuse falls flat in any event; in each of the first three votes, he voted for reduced spending. It wasn’t just pork he was voting against, but against the amount of money provided for veterans’ care. Only in 2007 did he vote an increase in spending over a previous bill and then by a much smaller amount than previous reductions.

In fact, McCain has offered no defense of his actions with regards Rep. Holt’s bill. His office has been silent. Huffington Post yesterday reported that “McCain spokesperson Brooke Buchanan took issue with Holt’s version of events, saying that he should look to his House colleagues for why the amendment was removed.”

That’s not much of an answer. But then McCain says he is a maverick. Maybe he can maverick away the truth. Holt, for his part, will soldier on, trying to get his bill passed: “I’ll keep trying to have the best possible federal policy to provide this help. I thought it was just an oversight or a mistake when the Senate rejected this last year, but when they really deliberately and knowingly rejected it this time, I was just appalled.”

And our soldiers – and our veterans, will continue to suffer while we treat them as objects, a disposable product to be used to manipulate international affairs, like soap you’d use to clean a floor and then wash down the drain, forgotten. But our soldiers are not disposable, they have friends and family who love them – and they deserve a country that loves them too, not only while they are doing their duty, but afterward too. Saving Sgt. Coleman Bean’s life would not, Senator McCain, have been “overreaching.”

16 responses so far

Christofascist Group CADC Threatens Divine Wrath for America

Dec 21 2010 Published by under Featured News, Issues, Republican Party

“destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass” – God, The Bible 1 Samuel 15:3

In the wake of the repeal of DADT the level of hatred unleashed by Republicans and Christofascists has been as shrill as we would have expected. As previously reported here by Rmuse, Bible-based bigotry did not carry the day and you’d think the world had come to an end. And according to some of these crazies, it will. Peter LaBarbara of the ironically-named “Americans For Truth About Homosexuality” (because they’re really about lies) talked about the “gaying down” of our military. But it was perennial bigot of the week Bryan Fischer’s words that stood out:

“The new Marine motto: ‘The Few, the Proud, the Sexually Twisted.’ Good luck selling that to strong young males who would otherwise love to defend their country. What virile young man wants to serve in a military like that?”

I dunno, Mr. Fischer. I know of at least one ancient Greek military unit that would have mopped the floor with any comparable force of heterosexuals you can care to name. The Sacred Band’s accomplishments show them to have been pretty damn virile.

You have to remember the lesson of the Old Testament, that those who turn away from God are vomited forth from the land. Everyone remembers what happened to those islands of tolerance and diversity known as Sodom and Gomorrah, whose only sin was to not toe the extremist religious line of the day. (Actually, it was because they were a bunch of selfish rich people that they were struck down by God, not because they engaged in sodomy – read it yourself. Ironic isn’t it? Turns out it was a bunch of Republicans…)

The ironically-named (they all seem to be ironically-named – for example, the Freedom Federation is about taking freedoms away, not protecting them) “Christian Anti-Defamation Commission” (CADC), which claims it is Christians who are the victims of bigotry (not the actual victims of Christian bigotry who are deprived of constitutionally-guaranteed rights), is now talking divine vengeance. Gary Cass’ secure line with God must have been ringing off the hook because he is telling us that God is about to unleash the “mighty sickle of His wrath” on America for “drinking from the dregs of civic debauchery.” Let Sarah Palin try to spell that!

This is serious Old Testament stuff here.

After a long and difficult fight, the struggle for maintaining the military policy of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” was lost for now. There are some hard truths for those who uphold traditional biblical morality to face. Being able to admit we have a problem is the first step towards making the changes we need to reverse this and other gains made by sexual anarchists and secularists.

“Sexual anarchists” he says.  It is clear that Mr. Cass has a very negative view of the modern liberal democracy, which has as its strong spine an adherence to tolerance and diversity.

The last thing we need to do is surrender biblical moral standards to sexual libertines, as if God’s holy nature has somehow changed with public opinion polls.

It’s appropriate here to suggest to Mr. Cass that there is no need (nor indeed any suggestion) that he surrender his biblical standards. Nobody is asking him to do anything he is not personally comfortable with. That is, after all, the essence of the modern liberal democracy. Nobody has suggested that Christians surrender their beliefs. They are merely asking that Christians tolerate the beliefs of others. This task is, apparently, too difficult for the CADC’s bigotry expert.

Homosexual behavior is intrinsically sinful and we cannot renegotiate God’s moral law. No apologies are necessary for agreeing with Jesus, the Apostles, the Law and the Prophets. History, science, scripture and eternity concur.

No apologies, but loads and loads of apologetics (For the record, an “apology” in this sense is “a defense of” so Christian apologetic works are a defense of Christianity – the bookshelves at your local bookstore probably sag under the weight of these tomes).

Homosexual sin, like every other kind of sin, always results in some kind of death. But sexual sin in general, and homosexual sin in particular, is singled out in the Old and New Testament as particularly deadly. Because of this, the unrepentant person trapped in homosexuality, just like all other sinners, is to be pitied and the object of our compassion.

I don’t know…most things result in death, including life. It’s the one thing none of us can escape. But to address Mr. Cass’ point about “sin” the Old Testament doesn’t really say what he says it does. Lesbianism, for example, isn’t outlawed in the Bible. No seed is wasted, you see.

IMPORTANT: And there is more ambiguity in the texts than he suggests. For one thing (and this is important) seed is the issue here, because the ancient Jews thought the seed contained ALL OF LIFE. No egg in the woman – just the man’s seed putting life in her womb. But modern science knows otherwise. Turns out God didn’t fully understand his own creation – or – God didn’t write those words so often quoted, or even say them. Jews who did not have the benefit of modern science wrote them. On the basis upon which they’re written, the injunctions against homosexuality, being a admonition against what amounted to basically murder, is now seen to be without merit.

Spiritually, they are dead to God’s mercy and transforming grace in Christ. Sadly, it was unrepentant homosexual Ellen DeGeneres who emceed the Christmas in Washington TV Show this year with President Obama and family smiling as they blindly celebrated the birth of the Savior. They never saw the incongruence of it all.

As I said, Mr. Cass, lesbianism, deplorable as it was seen, isn’t addressed in the Old Testament as a sin. You should really consider reading your own scriptures before you start “quoting” from them. Even unrepentant bigots – perhaps especially – should read before they talk.

Ultimately, we must resolve that Providence has ordained the repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” for now. It could not have happened if God had willed otherwise. But why?

Amusingly, perhaps, it was not God who repealed DADT but mortal men and women, duly and constitutionally elected. According to the Constitution, God does not get a vote. No god does.

In times like these when our nation defies the moral law of the living God, we must ask, “Is God hardening our heart like he did the defiant Pharaoh?” God did it to show His mighty power in the outpouring of ten plagues on the gods of Egypt and by destroying Pharaoh and his army.

I hate to break this to Mr. Cass given that he is on a roll here, but there is no evidence whatsoever that the whole Israel in captivity thing ever happened. The pyramids were built by Egyptians. Archaeologists have found their houses. What they have not found is any evidence that thousands of people wandered in the Sinai for decades. We have a lot of records from that period and no Egyptian sentry seems to have been aware of all those people crossing the border, coming or going.

And you thought the United States had trouble with illegal immigrants!

Is God letting America ripen in her rebellion before He wields the mighty sickle of His wrath? It’s worth considering as our nation’s military now serves under a shameful, pink flag.

Who is going to rebel, Mr. Cass? You? Polls demonstrate that some 75% of Americans supported repeal of DADT. If there is a rebellion, it will be a very small one. I almost hope that you will lead it. Or are you suggesting that America is rebelling against your God? Because I will happily remind you here again that God doesn’t enter into the picture. He’s not in the Constitution. We owe our fealty to the Constitution, not a deity, no matter how pissed off he may or may not be (and really, how can a perfect being even be pissed off? Such human frailties ought technically to be a logical impossibility).

In the meantime Christian, humbly pray, boldly preach and persevere by the power of the Holy Spirit knowing that God is not mocked and one day His righteousness will prevail.

God is not mocked here, Mr. Cass, but the Constitution, which was ratified by every state in this great nation, the Constitution written by our Founding Fathers. That is being mocked – by you.

Nobody is asking you to act against your beliefs. We are merely expecting you to respect our rights – according to the Constitution, the same Constitution which has protected yours for over 200 years.

7 responses so far

Older posts »