ن

Christian genocide.

The Bigotry of Low Expectations

Weren't we told that the unrest in the Muslim world was the fault of George W. Bush and his ham-fisted foreign policy?

Since America has now adopted a posture of "leading from behind", deference to world bodies, appeals to the "international community" to do what America used to do and foregoing public interaction with the Israeli Prime Minister, why hasn't resentment toward America abated? Could it be that non-Muslims are reviled because of their infidel status and cultural openness?

Is anyone walking on eggshells around other religious groups? If not, is this an admission of having a different moral expectation of Muslims than for Christians, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jews, Hindus, Confucians, etc., etc., etc.?

Is there any other religion/culture on the face of the earth for whom the response to violence and murder would be "We understand your pain and are sorry that it was caused" instead of "What the hell is wrong with your moral compass"? Doesn't this reveal that Muslims are not regarded as moral equivalents and therefore cannot be spoken to as moral peers?

Does anyone expect the autonomic response of American Christians to abortion to be rioting and murder? Does anyone expect the autonomic response of the black community to skinheads to be rioting and murder? Does anyone expect the autonomic response of the homosexual community to offenses to be rioting and murder? If the answer is anything approaching a no, doesn't this presuppose that their value system prevents this sort of behavior? Why doesn't this same moral expectation exist for those engaging in mayhem in the Middle East? Why is one group expected to act in a developed, advanced moral manner while the other is not?

Did culture and values (as opposed to politics and economics) have anything to do with informing a population that an appropriate response to a religious offense is to riot and commit murder? If yes, was the media wrong in its assessment of Mitt Romney's remarks vis-à-vis Israelis and Palestinians?

The left attempted to detach Nidal Hasan's rage from his values and culture and was left with blaming his actions on pre-post-traumatic disorder – yet another external influence that overwhelmed culture. No explanation was given for how yelling "Allahu Akbar" while committing murder may have played into the day's events or suggested a cultural mooring.

And yet, the media had no problem indicting culture - conservative culture - on behalf of Jared Loughner when they blamed his behavior on a culture of hate and provocative right-wing rhetoric. Of course, their premature musings were completely false, but hey, being in the media means never having to say you're sorry. Even if true, was Loughner somehow less responsible for his actions?

One wonders if the Uni-bomber, Code Pink, OWS, SEIU thugs who beat a conservative black, Bill Ayers, G20 protesters, Black Panthers and that guy who shot up the Family Research Council did what they did because of their personal culture and values. Or maybe they had a tummy ache or were externally provoked in some way. Would FRC be excused if they acted in riotous ways since they have been called a hate group? One supposes there would be excuses galore for Muslim violence if an American religious group called the Muslim extremists in the Middle East a hate group, and God forbid, posted it to the internet.

The left wants it both ways. Their darlings are relieved of personal responsibility for their actions and only do things as a reaction to some external stimuli. The left wants to pretend that certain behaviors are not informed by culture, values or even, as Jonah Goldberg has noted in his recent book, ideology. But when the right does anything, whether violent or not, it is from a culture of hate, corrupt values and warped ideology. The thing is, the right would agree – sans adjectives – that they operate from a learned culture that promotes certain values and leads to certain ideologies and that it is precisely that culture that elevates man above animals.

Does the left really believe that animalistic defensive response is equal to or better than culture? Do they believe that Muslims are cultureless animals that have not yet learned to control their reflexive impulses? Probably not, but the left gets to this tricky spot because they are unwilling to admit that some cultures are better than others. Calling Romney's comment about culture vis-à-vis Israel and Palestine a gaffe confirms their aversion to acknowledging western culture as better. So does their dismissal of the right's disciplined nationalism as xenophobia. (Although, listening to the Democratic Convention speeches, there was a lot of 'America is the best', 'no other country on the planet is as good as America' talk. Does that make them xenophobes too?)

The left treats Muslims like children – albeit violent children that can do great harm. Yes, we want to respect the beliefs of others and there is no reason to be overtly provocative or mean. (The Westboro Baptist jackasses come to mind.) But while disagreeing, everyone assumes that their opponents will act responsibly while battling over ideas. The left believes this about American Christians. They know without a shadow of a doubt that they can say anything about American Christians and not fear that their property, livelihoods or lives will be in danger. The left knows that the culture and values of the Christian community prevents them from acting in riotous and destructive ways.

However, the left does not maintain this set of assumptions about Muslims. Why? Because the left knows that Muslims either do not profess such a mitigating culture and/or do not act in ways that suggest they are constrained by a culture and values that eschews violent behaviors and respects the rights of their fellow man. The left's speech is stifled and they are constantly self-censoring in order to placate the hair trigger Muslim world.

But, to be fair, in certain areas the right also interacts with a particular group in the same manner that the left treats Muslims. Because of fear of financial destruction through boycotting (Chik-fil-A), losing their job (political correctness), poor grades in school (speech codes), character assassination and bullying (racist, bigot, sexist, homophobe, hater, etc.) physical occupation of parks and bridges and disruption of business (OWS), or being hauled off at midnight for a little, ahem, questioning (link) – just to name a few examples – the right often is bullied into not speaking freely for fear of retaliation from a group that seems to be unfettered by cultural and value driven ideology that would assure decent disagreement.

Legislating Morality From the Left

Those on the left who quote the Bible to justify ever increasing government and spending are guilty of what they accuse the right of doing - legislating morality.

What happened to the wall of separation?

If they don't use religion as the rationale to enlarge government and increase spending for welfare, then they are having government fulfill the role of charity. By doing this, atheists and evolutionists of the left want government to act as the final arbiter of morality.

The Founders' statement that people "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" seems to lobby against government being the source of moral conduct and charity.

Magic Underwear

This AlterNet article (reproduced later in Salon) is just one of many out there on the Mormon "magic underwear". It is just the sort of rabble-rousing that will be going on this year to discredit the Mormons now that a presidential candidate is Mormon. Just more of the 'not dealing with the opposition's ideas but rather destroy their humanity' routine.

From the NY Times' Charles Blow's comment and then retraction/apology:

Let me just tell you this Mitt “Muddle Mouth”: I’m a single parent and my kids are *amazing*! Stick that in your magic underwear. #CNNdebate

To Cher's (1, 2) bigoted tweets:

If ROMNEY gets elected I don't know if i can breathe same air as Him his Right Wing Racist Homophobic Women Hating Tea Bagger Masters

I Feel if he doesn't get all his DUCKS IN A ROW we'll b forced 2 listen 2Uncaring Richy Rich! The whitest man in MAGIC UNDERWEAR in the WH

To Bill Maher's rants:

“Don’t get me started on Mitt Romney,” Maher sneered to Letterman. ”Because Mitt Romney will teach America what’s really in Mormonism.”

“Mitt likes to gloss over... ‘well, we’re just different types of Christians.’ No. No, I was raised Catholic,” Maher leaned in and raised an eyebrow, setting up for his big punchline: ”And there was no magic underwear.”

To Roger Ebert's unanswered supplication:

So what's the deal with magic Mormon underwear? bit.ly/PwEOiI

One of the odd things about the article - and Cher's tolerant and compassionate tweet - is where it drifts into dismissing or implying that those who believe in sexual modesty are sexually confused. Even the article careens into this peculiar behavior where it states:

As recent research on homosexuality suggests, people who are struggling to contain or suppress their own sexuality may be particularly interested in controlling the sexuality of others.

It is clearly implying that those who may resist homosexuality are sexually confused themselves. Apparently it is not possible that they just disagree but rather they must be morally or psychologically deficient.

As an aside, and knowing that - just as many heterosexuals do - gays often struggle with their sexuality, are the authors also implying that homosexuals are interested in controlling the sexuality of others? If a religious gay person desires to restrict pornography and public displays of affection, does that make him/her repressive or interested in 'controlling the sexuality of others'? (And if you think that it is not possible that a gay person would/could support regulation of pornography or imposition of modesty you are a bigot of the tallest order. If you think it not possible, do you imagine that there is a singular appropriate way for a gay to think?)

This sort of reflexive mockery of certain groups in our society that says a group may be displaying some sort of sexual deviancy is no different than what has happened to the gay community in the past. Shouldn't the gay community be disturbed about this? If anyone can understand the problems with this sort of hate mongering, it is the gay community. Or is it just an 'anything goes' attitude that accepts any means to an end?

Worst of all is the implication that all of these repressive deviants on the right might be gays themselves. The article - and those who share this ignominious attack scheme - hold gays up as a prized possession for political reasons and then throws them under the bus by using them as the dysfunctional group into which they lump the right when the right is demonstrating their supposed dysfunction. You will never hear them say that those uptight, sexually oppressed, woman hating, deviants on the right are repressing their white heterosexual leftist tendencies. Instead you hear that if those on the right are repressive deviants they therefore must be homosexual themselves. If I were in the gay community, I'd be pissed that the left treated me with such contempt. That the article, and others who sing a similar tune, treats the gay community like a lap dog is shameful. That the gay community takes it lying down is disheartening.

Now back to the underwear thing. I suppose the mockery of anyone who chooses to wear an article of clothing that reminds him/her of his faith is just too nuanced for those who do the mocking. Do they similarly heap scorn on those who wear other articles of clothing or adornments that remind the wearer of certain commitments? Are the wedding band, payot, the yarmulke, a habit, the rosary, the rakusu, mala, the burqa, the ban on gold or silk for men, a Dastar, a Kanga, the Langa Voni, the Kalava, or the green, gold and red rastacap equally deserving the snide, ignorant, mean-spirited bullying that the LDS clothing engenders?

So often it is the crowd who professes tolerance who is the least tolerant. They could use a little training on promoting religious tolerance.

It is not that the other side owns tolerance, but that those who merely profess their own tolerance while being anything but, is disturbing for its lack of self-awareness. The professed tolerance is often nothing more than a myth. They have tolerance for everything but what they don't tolerate.

As Joanna Brooks noted in her observations on Maher:

The same way an orthodox Jew would wear a kippah (for men) or modest clothing (for women), or a Muslim woman would wear a headscarf, highly observant Mormons wear garments.

I do, however, find it strange, juvenile, threatening, and repulsive when grown men bully other people about their underwear on national television.

Competing Religions

The Judeo-Christian mindset is, "What do I owe my fellow man."  The leftist mindset is, "What does my fellow man owe me." 

Another way to say this is that the religious are concerned with obligations and the leftist is concerned with rights.  One is outward facing while the other is inward facing.  One is selfless while the other is selfish. 

Neither group is absolutely one or the other, but these are more an undercurrent and guide the externalities of each group.  Each group's view of governance is informed by these tendencies. 

Cain, Infidelity and the Right

It has been pretty difficult to get the slumbering media masses to do in-depth reporting on sexual indiscretions of Democrats such as President Clinton, Jesse Jackson, Barney Frank, Alcee Hastings, John Edwards and others. Digging up licentiousness on liberals can be tough. A guy pretty much has to sext nude photos of himself before the media will take notice. But even then it takes a bit of coaxing.

And maybe the women who target Democrats are gold diggers and don't deserve to have their stories heard. Maybe this is what you get when you "drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park." (Why the leaders of the party of compassion and nuance are dragging hundred-dollar bills through trailer parks is another question for another day.)

Although, when you have allegations against a Republican, you need to run with the story - no matter how vague it is. Even if you don't feel you are on firm ground. As James Taranto noted:

Anonymous sources told Politico that unnamed women alleged that Cain said unspecified things and made unspecified gestures to them sometime before the turn of the century. The only available fact is that the complaints led to a legal settlement, which included a confidentiality agreement, so its details are unknown.

Of course the media is biased. Only unquestioning zealots and manipulators feign shock at the idea. But, the media would not make a big deal out of these allegations if there wasn't an audience. And the audience they are playing to is the religious right.

When those on the right ask questions like "If a man cannot keep his marital vow, then how can we be sure he'll keep his oath of office?", the left leaning media knows it has lethiferous gold in a story like Cain's.

The question posed above presumes that infidelity is indicative of governing. It is a silly notion, but many on the right believe that dalliance is the litmus test that precludes any good or decent governing. The trouble is, reality just doesn't comport with this test.

It would be hard to argue that all the good that was done by Martin Luther King, Jr. should be dismissed because he had extramarital affairs. To dismiss all of his goodness because he was - shock of all shocks - human, is stupid. As noted at thegrio:

A great man is not defined by his weaknesses, but by his strengths. Regardless of what Dr. King may have done during the course of his marriage, those actions are almost completely disconnected from the manner through which he inspired billions with his courage and led people of color to the life we share today. It is our fault, not his, that Dr. King has been placed on a pedestal so high that we've forgotten that he was human.

(Of course, this is a generalized statement and there are "weaknesses" that are so significant as to overwhelm any "strengths" a person may have. A man who kidnaps, rapes and kills a 9 year-old girl and buries neighbors alive can spend as much time as he wishes at the soup kitchen. His actions are so reprehensible that they cannot be undone by random acts of kindness. These are all matters of degree. A serial philanderer is quite different than a person who is flirtatious or who had a one night stand.)

Clearly, philandering did not affect MLK's moral compass on matters of racism. Can we be happy that in spite of his own humanity he lifted the rest of mankind on his shoulders and carried them to a better place?

Similarly, did Rudy Giuliani handle the tragedy of 9/11 expertly in spite of his wolfishness? Should Jews have refused Oskar Schindler's help because he moonlighted?

The idea is preposterous and those on the right do a disservice by using this as a litmus test. All adultery tells us is that these men were sinners and far from perfect. However, they did some pretty good things in spite of their fallen nature. Even God allowed King David to continue after his Bathsheba episode where he even went so far as to send her husband off to war to be killed.

It fails in the other direction as well. By all accounts, President Carter was a sterling husband. However, his leadership and policy decisions were about as far removed from the religious right's values as one can imagine. And his post-Presidential behavior has been boorish at best and borders on racist.

And where does this stop? Should a candidate be eliminated because he didn't honor the Sabbath or his mother and father? How about coveting the neighbor's house? If a Jew should eat bacon, does that render him an economic imbecile and therefore unfit to be President? Clearly smoking marijuana no longer precludes presidential aspirations. (Again, a matter of degree. A nightly doobie roast is rightly judged differently than a college foray. And whether marijuana is a gateway drug or not, it is not heroine or meth. Nobody worries whether their airline pilot smoked pot in college. Irresponsible behavior in the past does not necessarily prevent critical thinking, decision making or responsible behavior when one is older.)

The religious right needs to realize that they are not voting for pastor, rabbi, monk, priest or pope. They should be voting for a man or woman to govern the nation in accordance with its Constitution, certain values and with a particular economic vision.

Of course we all expect decent and honorable behavior and nobody is asking to throw out all expectations. But there is no reason to demand that a presidential candidate be as pure as the wind driven snow. Many good and decent people have stumbled or engaged in youthful or imprudent pursuits. And this moral myopia will only prevent many good people from seeking the nation's highest office and will result in a far worse nation for all.

Notable Quotable

People will either feel accountable to an all powerful God who will judge them, or to a state that will arrest them.

Satan Sandwich

When Rep. Emanuel Cleaver said that proposed legislation is "antithetical to what the great religions of the world teach," why is this not legislating morality? If Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann or any other Republican said that the legislation should impose religious values on the American people, wouldn't that be attacked as inappropriate?

WWJD

There is a lot of WWJD talk being used to justify policy these days.

Lawrence O'Donnell on MSNBC.

While Jesus may not have specified specific tax brackets, He was the first recorded advocate of a progressive income tax.

Obviously, He [Jesus] would take from each according to their ability to pay. That is the clear, Christian, philosophical basis of a progressive income tax.

Jesus Christ's instructions to you could not be more specific. You can follow Christ's path to righteousness or you can follow the path of the damned. The choice is yours.

Rep. Charlie Rangel

What would Jesus do this weekend?

Eric Sapp/Thom Hartmann

In Matthew 25, which is to my recollection, I've only read the Bible four times, but, the only time when the Disciples actually sat down with Jesus and said, "How do we get into heaven?" And He said, "Here's the list. Feed the hungry. Clothe the naked." The modern equivalent would be, you know, house the homeless. "Heal the sick. Visit those unjustly in prison."

The Hill

Jesus taught we should sell our possessions and give the proceeds to the poor...

Are they advocating for a religious state? One that operates straight from the precepts of Jesus? A theocracy? Christian Sharia law?

Ken Shepherd at NewsBusters does a good job of deconstructing O'Donnell's sermon.

There are a few assumptions that go into these presentations of WWJD that preordain the conclusions drawn by those cited above:

1. That Jesus was directing his comments to the state not the individual.
2. That the state is the singular method of helping the poor and Christian charity.
3. That those who don't think that the government should be the charity arm of the Christian church are mean and selfish.
4. It is OK for to judge the motives and eternal salvation of limited government capitalists and the rich.
5. There is no room for alternate interpretations.
6. The separation of church and state is only meant for 'those other guys.'

...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

~ Thomas Jefferson

Those represented in the links above might believe that Jesus mandates that the government be a branch of the church, but this strains credulity since they are all people of the left. Traditionally, those on the left interpret Jefferson's statement to the Danbury Baptists to mean that even a creche cannot be placed in front of a government building or that circumcision is a primitive religious rite that should not be subsidized. Surely, if placing a creche in front of the courthouse next to Santa and his reindeer creates church/state entanglement, using the government to carry out a central doctrine of the Christian church is problematic. In the past, the left was satisfied with merely taking the responsibility away from the church and making it their own without the pretense of religiosity. Apparently that was then and this is now.

In his discussion with Thom Hartmann, Eric Sapp notes that hypocrisy is the only "sin in the New Testament that gets the divine death penalty." One wonders if Mr. O'Donnell will spend 10 minutes Bible thumping to his fellow sojourners on the left about how hard it is to get through the eye of a needle and sure fire methods of avoiding God's wrath, including "Give up everything. Those are the words of Jesus Christ. Give up everything."

It would be the Christian thing to do.

Ayn Rand and Jesus

Eric Sapp/Thom Hartmann wrestled with the idea of whether one could like anything that Ayn Rand had to say and still be a Christian. It was a discussion aimed at those swing voters who do not have a fixed notion of what they think the role of government should be with respect to charity.

Sapp summed up his thesis by stating:

People who say, "well, I'm a Christian and I can follow Ayn Rand." Well, by definition you can't, because Ayn Rand taught you can't follow her and follow Christ.

What an amazingly puerile, vacuous and facile statement. To be sure, there are problems with the Objectivist philosophy. Ayn Rand's view of the world relies too heavily on individual integrity to work. There are dark and ugly traits in man that will prevent the absolute capitalism that she envisions. The corrupt and lazy would certainly ruin it for the rest.

Conservatives and Christians who gravitate toward the works of Ayn Rand connect with the descriptions of individualism and small government. Sapp and Hartmann's black and white, unnuanced view that one must either take all of Rand's philosophy or none of it is childish. This manner of thought might also prevent Christian progressives from supporting any governmental social programs since such policies fall within the bounds of Marx's teachings.

One would think that these gentlemen of the left would laud the 'big-tent' inclusivity of Christian conservatives that can find some common ground with an unabashed atheist.

Sapp said that he is hoping to engender discussion with the ad campaign by revealing that the fruits and roots of the Republican budget are rotten and not in keeping with Matthew 25 (if fruits are actions, then roots are motives), and that Republican politicized policies are rotten and based on a totally anti Christ message. Surely he doesn't hope that those who see the ad will then vote Republican after considering the anti Christ nature of Republican policies and the evil motives and trickery of those making that policy. He fully intends to persuade those who may have voted Republican to support the Christ centered, kind policies of the left that are in keeping with Matthew 25.

Another subtext in their argument assumes that the vehicle for Christian charity is the government. They offer no Biblical justification for this. It is just assumed.

What is particularly odd about this is that normally those on the political left are hypersensitive to any commingling of church and state. It doesn't seem to bother either of them that the leap from caring for the poor to having the government be the purveyor of that care clearly violates the cherished notion of separation of church and state. If they embrace the idea of the separation of church and state, they should recommend that Christian charity be done by the local churches. If, however, they desire that the government perform this directive of Jesus, then they should acknowledge that they do in fact want to legislate morality and have the government perform their religious duty on behalf of the church.

Sapp and Hartmann must explain how making laws imposing the religious ideals expressed by Jesus either does not establish a religion, or does not prohibit someone from exercising his religious choice (if, for example, his religion does not mandate that he give charity). One suspects that the argument in favor of government imposed religious belief in this case might sound similar to conservative's maintaining that a national day of prayer is not tantamount to government establishing a religion. However, since a day of prayer does not require input from anyone and the imposition of Christian charity mandates the taking of another's earned income, one might expect a more thoroughgoing and rigorous apologetic by Sapp and Hartmann.

However, they might argue that the concept of charity can exist outside of the religious dogma of Christianity and therefore isn't exclusively a religious teaching but rather a universal ideal. Of course, if this is the case for charity, it is also the case for the ideals that religious conservatives identify with in Ayn Rand's writings. Just as an atheist is not compelled to eschew the economic policies of a devoutly religious liberal, a religious conservative does not need to be bullied into abandoning ideas about limited government because the atheist Ayn Rand also shared those beliefs. And the thoughtful person is able to discriminate and is in no way obligated to accept or embrace every idea promulgated by any author. In other words, they are free to eat the hay and leave the sticks.

The throw the baby out with the bathwater approach suggested by Sapp and Hartmann is so inane that it hardly merits a response. But they present it in such a smooth and confident manner that is passes as sophisticated thought. Presented without critical review, this argument will likely persuade some voters who are not secure in their own world view.

Just as honorable liberals can favor a political economy that seeks equalization of wealth through redistributive policies without embracing the uglier aspects of Communism, so a conservative can favor a political economy that seeks competitive markets with minimal government intrusion without embracing the uglier aspects of Objectivism.


Chuck Colson video on Atlas Shrugged

BreakPoint Commentary

American Spectator

It's touching how liberal, religiously pluralistic groups like Faithful America and American Values Network are suddenly very concerned that Christians specifically remain faithful to the Bible and to Jesus. Their respective boards are populated with activists and clergy not themselves known for careful adherence to Christian orthodoxy.

The Atlantic

But calling Ayn Rand "brilliant," as Rush Limbaugh is quoted doing, or labeling yourself "a fan" of her work, like Rand Paul, doesn't mean that you embrace every tenet of her philosophy, never mind her every statement about Jesus Christ or the Christian religion.

Eric Sapp in The Huffington Post

It uncovers the heartless GOP and Tea Party wolves who've been parading around in sheep's clothing among the Christian flock, leading them astray.