From The Moment Of Conception

I noted with some interest that in congratulating minority populations for passing Prop 8 in California, that Cardinal George and Archbishop Neiderauer completely overlooked some other propositions which failed. Those would be all the propositions which attempted in some form or another to limit a woman's access to legal abortion. They had plenty of words directed at President elect Obama on this issue, but were deafening in their silence towards the American electorate.

There were a couple of these anti abortion initiatives which I followed with a great deal of interest, but Colorado's Amendment 48, which sought to define a full person from the moment of conception, held the most interest. It failed 73% to 27%.

Colorado, the state which includes Colorado Springs and Archbishop Chaput, overwhelmingly voted down a constitutional amendment to define a full person as existing from the moment of conception. I think this result is perhaps more important than the lack of commentary would suggest.

I've often wondered if people really believe that a full person exists from the moment of conception. I've wondered if people had a chance to vote on this idea, if they would they support it. It seems that even in the epi center of the pro life movement, they don't really believe this enough to change their constitution to support it.

Born again Evangelicals supported it by a 51-49% margin, although it was defeated in the Colorado Springs area. CNN did not have a breakdown for Catholics, and so they are lumped into the Non Evangelical category which went 80% against. Must mean a lot of Catholics voted against Amendment 48. Maybe this means a lot of Catholics aren't too sure about this notion that a full human person exists at conception. They may believe life begins at conception, but aren't too sure what that 'life' means relative to a full person.

It seems to me this is the part of the abortion debate which recieves little attention. I understand why Catholic leaders insist human life begins at conception because that's a given in order to support the birth control ban. But out in reality, where real women and real couples have to deal with this issue for entirely different real reasons it doesn't seem to be a given.

I would suggest that while all the bishops are gathered for the USCCB meeting in Baltimore they might want to stop congratulating themselves on the passage of the anti gay marriage initiatives and spend some time on their stunning losses on the abortion intiatives. Especially Amendment 48, which spoke to the heart of their life begins at conception theology. I doubt they will though, this might be too much reality. Better to focus on the successes of what amounts to church sponsored constitutional bigotry, than the losses of church sponsored constitutional theology.

The 'Reality' Of Rationalization

One psychological defense mechanism employed by the left hemisphere is rationalization. How this is employed can sometimes be mind boggling. When it's employed by otherwise intelligent people it can take a person's breath away. I'm going to list some examples of this which have appeared in print in the last few days.

Here's one from the Mormon Church complaining about the fact their temples in Los Angeles and Salt Lake City were picketed by people opposed to the Utah based Mormon church's interference in California's Proposition 8 battle:

"While those who disagree with our position on Proposition 8 have the right to make their feelings known, it is wrong to target the Church and its sacred places of worship for being part of the democratic process."

So why is it wrong for people to picket the places of one of the prime movers from which the campaign was organized and disseminated? It appears to me the LDS church leadership is insisting on an uneven playing field. They can use their churches and church property for political purposes but then want to hide behind the separation clause to protect themselves from the fallout. I guess they want full access to the democratic process, but only under their own rules. This is a classic rationalization designed to insure they still feel good about themselves for having vigorously promoted an attack on someone else's constitutional rights. They hide behind the very same constitution to justify their view.

Here's another one from Cardinal Mahony, Archbishop of Los Angeles:

"Proposition 8 is not against any group in our society. Its sole focus is on preserving God's plan for people living upon this earth throughout time," Cardinal Roger Mahony, archbishop of the Diocese of Los Angeles, said in a statement Thursday.

If anything, this is even more disingenuous. Prop 8 took away a constitutional state right, for a very particular group of tax paying people. Where this gets more interesting is that Cardinal Mahoney maintains Prop 8 was written to support God. Last I checked, California was a secular democracy, not God's theocracy. I'm sure it makes the Cardinal feel much better to rationalize that he wasn't advocating the removal of a state right for gays, that he was just supporting God. Doing God's will is a favorite form of rationalization for people who engage in irrational and not very nice things.

Here's one from Sarah Palin:

Palin said she's confident she can still work with Alaska Democrats, despite the bad blood that came from comments such as the one about President-elect Barack Obama palling around with terrorists. She said she has not become partisan.

"I don't know why (anyone would say that) except that I ran for vice president, with a presidential candidate, ran on a ticket...of a party that I've been part of since I was 18. Nothing has changed there, my values, my convictions, my ability to work with Democrats, independents and Republicans all together has never changed."

"So if there's criticism that all of a sudden I've changed and become an obsessive partisan, then it's not accurate criticism."

All righty then, straight from the standard bearer of the Republican rightwing we now hear she's not partisan. The woman who made the case for rightwing nationalism was really a uniter all the time. Other people made her do these things, and other people are not accurate in describing her, and other people, like certain cruel, petty McCain campaign people are out to get her. Rationalizations of the poor me, I'm so misunderstood, classic victim, she doesn't know why anyone would say these things about her. This is not the kind of rationalization which is used by the intellectual elite types.

Speaking of intellectual elites, we have this from George Weigel:

“It will be interesting to see how the ‘Catholic vote’ finally broke, but it will be essential to pick that vote apart and look at how regular-Mass-going Catholics voted as distinguished from occasional church-goers and other ‘tribal’ Catholics.”

This is a form of rationalization which extends the Republican strategy of 'real Americans' vs 'other Americans' to the Catholic sphere. The rationalization here is that Weigel's agenda was defeated by those 'others'. There is nothing wrong with the agenda or how it was presented. The classic "it isn't our fault we lost". The blame rests elsewhere, like on the other team.

This kind of rationalizing is not conducive to consensus building or reality checking, because the rationalization contains it's own justification. Regular Mass goers did vote for McCain, although not as strongly as they voted for Bush, and those 'other' Catholics did support Obama with numbers that Kerry must envy, and so there you have it. It's the fault of those slacker Catholics, who don't listen to their bishops because they are not in Church to hear them. The fact is over 100 of these bishops took the message to the media. They were heard. They still didn't get the results they wanted. As long as the divisions with in the Church are blamed on the people being alienated, there will be no change because their doesn't have to be any change. It's their own fault they feel alienated.

I could go on and on with this. Karl Rove comes to mind, who felt the need to insist that American is still a center right country based on the passage of four anti gay initiatives. I guess this balances all the other data which say something completely different, such as the rejection of all the anti abortion initiatives, and half the country going from red to blue.

And now it's time for a personal story

All of this reminds me of when the college basketball team I played on lost a game by 73 points and our coach tried to tell us it was a victory because we kept the opponent from being the first women's college team to score 100 points. From her point of view I guess it was a victory of sorts. From my point of view it wasn't.

The truth is somewhat different. We knew we were going to get clocked, and so we made deals with some of the opposition for them to keep it under 100. Their coach went nuts when time ran out and they had failed in her mission to reach that particular national record.

I actually felt sorry for them, but I also felt respected by them. One wonders if in the next four years any such deals will be made, and any respect given. Winning is one thing, but purposefully humiliating your opposition for your own ideological gain is something else. I don't get the feeling that President elect Obama is the kind of person who will humiliate his opposition, but I also don't get the feeling that too many of the right are interested in making deals that will help avoid that kind of humiliation. I've been there, and I've done that, and I feel a whole lot better about myself for having caved into reality to strike a deal that avoided permanent humiliation.

I gave up some points myself, (I couldn't exceed 14) but in the long run, it was a good deal. There were no hard feelings when some of us opponents wound up teammates on the same summer softball team.

This country can't afford any more rationalizations about this election season and what it means. It's time to get real and work with each other. Sometimes it works pretty well for both sides and everyone wins something.

PS: My prayers are with Fr. Andrew Greeley as he fights for life in Chicago. A lot of us are indebted to his pioneering work and his numerous writings. Whether you agreed with him or not, he made people think. That's always a good thing.

Air Force Academy of Fighting Jesus

President elect Obama and his new Secretary of Defense will have multiple problems to deal with, but one which really really needs to be looked into is the attempt by the Christian right to infiltrate and take over the United States Military for their version of Fighting Jesus.

The epicenter of this battle has been the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs. Oh, Colorado Springs, the home of the New Apostolic Reformation's power base. Imagine that. No wonder why, in 2006, of the 50 complaints of religious harassment from our military academies, 49 came from the Air Force Academy.

In case one thinks 50 complaints is not very many, imagine how difficult it is for any military person, much less a Cadette, to tell a superior officer, "thanks sir, but no thanks." The Air Force academy is also the place which had a big problem with sexual harassment of it's female Cadettes. This happening at the same time as the rise of Evangelical prostelyzation.

Is there a connection? Perhaps, because one of the unstated social goals of these Evangelical groups is the replacement of individual rights with family rights. It doesn't take an Old Testament biblical scholar to figure out where women figure in 'family rights'. Nor should it come as any shock that the group of Cadettes most likely to be harassed are Jewish, but then, there are also plenty of complaints from Cadettes who practice conventional mainstream faiths. Going to Mass, aint' gonna cut it, you must be 'born again'.

There are plenty of available articles about Evangelicals and their influence on the military, especially the officer corps. The Air Force academy stands out however. Both because of it's proximity to the 'Evangelical Vatican', and because of the pervasiveness of the inroads made by Evangelicals into the entire system of the Academy. Fighting Jesus is everywhere.

Mickey Weinstein, an alumni of the Academy and a past member of Reagan's Attorney General's office, is leading the fight against the proselytizing of our military by Evangelicals. He is fighting an uphill battle. He views this confluence of the Evangelicals with the military as a huge separation of Chruch and State issue, and more than that, as a real security threat.

When Jesus is your boss, who really has your allegiance as you pilot your billion dollar stealth bomber? (See sidebar video of McCain/Palin) Is your primary mission to protect and defend the United States, or is it to act as one of God's Holy Warriors? Is this a form of 'weaponized evangelism', an actual military arm to compliment the prayer warriors? Scary thought.

In his attempt to raise this issue, Mickey Weinstein has run into all kinds of interesting roadblocks, and incurred too many personal threats to keep count of. One would think his cause would enjoy the support of the Jewish Anti Defamation League, but Evangelicals have been way too vocal in their support of Israel, so Mickey is looked at as a kind of ugly step child who maybe should pipe down.

As a life long Republican, Mickey has been left out to dry by them as well, and so his congressional allies have been demonized democrats. He has his share of support with in the military, but that is a more quiet support because careers get ruined. He has been a voice crying in the wilderness, but come January 21, 2009 that might change.

You can make book on the fact that Dobson and his crew in Colorado Springs will continue to argue that this is a 'Free Speech' issue: "an assault on religious speech within the United States Military, that will have a chilling effect on constitutionally protected rights of service members."

This Free Speech right also includes the right to actively evangelize while on duty, to lead prayer services during communal events, and spread the word in official newspapers. And of course it most applies to the officer corps. FYI the chaplaincy corps of the Air Force is 70% Evangelical.

Some more FYI. The above patch for the 523rd Fighter Group was singled out by Mickey Weinstein as an egregious example of just how far the Christian Right has been able to penetrate the Air Force. Since the 523rd was down sized out of existence, I guess you could say he won this one. The question is, what comes next?

Fighting Jesus Takes A Loss

by Christine Wicker

Tuesday night one American Jesus won. The other lost.

Whether American Christianity will be strengthened or weakened remains to be seen.
As I listened to Barack Obama eschew any note of triumph, praise John McCain as he has so many times, and call for the country to be united, I thought, He sounds like what most Americans think Christians ought to sound like.

He didn't sound like Sarah Palin. Or John McCain. Or George W. Bush. Or many of the evangelicals rousing their troops before the election. As voting began, one of those leaders said that evangelicals would vote for the devil himself rather than give support to Obama. Another warned that Obama could be the Anti-Christ and not even know it.

Their talk represented the Jesus that lost this election. That Jesus, let's call him the Fighting Jesus, is angry, punishing, highly concerned about sexual behavior and about keeping women in certain roles. He favors battle terms, focuses on his enemies and is vigilant against evil.

(This Jesus is also straight from the Old Testament.)

Only those who repent and believe properly will go to heaven. He divides the world into the sheep and goats, the saved and lost. The saved are his people. No one else is.

The Fighting Jesus protects his people, hears them and answers their prayers. He also punishes them, but he punishes those who reject him even more.

His followers, who call themselves God's people, feel compelled to speak boldly against evil and unbelief. They must rebuke and correct those who don't follow their Jesus. The Fighting Jesus is a divider.

He never changes.

He is in the Bible. Those who believe in him often know the Bible quite well and so are justifiably unapologetic before those who accuse them of being un-Christian or mean spirited.

The Jesus who won on Tuesday is also in the Bible.

This Jesus responds mildly to criticism and threat. He's respectful of others. He favors peace. He focuses far more on the needs of the poor than on sexual behavior. He is less concerned with the letter of religious law than its spirit. He isn't much concerned with deciding who is evil and who is good. For him forgiving enemies is more important than battling them. He is a uniter.
A growing number of his followers think he allows even nonbelievers into heaven.

Some of his followers know the Bible quite well. Barack Obama appears to be among those. His Jesus might be called the Peace Jesus.

He might also be called the Popular Jesus because many Americans are convinced that this Jesus is the true one. These people often judge followers of the Fighting Jesus harshly and say that they aren't acting like Jesus followers at all.

These nonbeliever delight in declaring that they like Jesus; it's the Christians they can't stand.
For decades Fighting Jesus followers have held the spotlight. In the popular mind, they've won most of their battles. They have come to represent American Christianity as a whole, as though they are the only Jesus followers.

Barack Obama didn't preach his faith nearly as much as Sarah Palin did. He didn't oppose abortion as the Fighting Jesus followers demanded and as John McCain did. But when news of Palin's daughter's pregnancy surfaced, he forbade his staff to capitalize on it and said he would fire anyone who did. Then he stopped all stone throwing by noting that his own mother was young when he was born.

I thought, somewhat ruefully, He's acting like Jesus.

In the debates when John McCain refused to look at him, when McCain answered derisively, when McCain sneered and smirked, Obama did not respond in kind. He praised McCain's virtues consistently. He ignored all opportunities to humiliate or deride McCain. He passed up easy scores, even on policy matters.

I thought with a groan, He's acting like Jesus.

And then Tuesday night, he talked of coming together, of caring for one another, of sacrifice for the common good.

I thought with delight, He's still acting like Jesus.
The Peace Jesus.

Many people are terrified of the Peace Jesus. They think he's weak.
But it didn't look that way Tuesday night. Obama didn't look weak. And neither did the Peace Jesus. They looked like hope and strength and a new way.
Let's pray they are.

********************************************************

It wasn't only Fighting Jesus that lost on Tuesday, it was also a loss for all of our bishops who support Fighting Jesus. All those bishops who told us we would go to hell if we voted for Obama will now have to deal with the fact almost 60% of their flock opted for hell rather than McCain/Palin. So much for the threat of hell.

I can see how threats of hell may influence a few believers, but I am at a complete loss as to why our bishops thought this was a credible threat for educated thinking Catholics. You know, the kind that know Africa is a continent and not a country. Even John Paul the Great never sank to this level. He didn't even believe hell was a place. Maybe some of our bishops haven't made it to that part of John Paul's writing, having apparently gotten stuck in Theology of the Body.

It will be interesting to see what comes out of next week's USCCB gathering in Baltimore. I wonder if there isn't going to be a little battling going on between proponents of Fighting Jesus and proponents of Peace Jesus.

It would be nice if the proponents of Peace Jesus realized they have voices too, and finally used them, because the proponents of Fighting Jesus are becoming an outright embarrassment to the majority of the laity. This is not to say they weren't that way previous to the election, but their vehemence and fear mongering in the last week was over the top, and in retrospect impotent.

Impotent, that's an interesting word. Impotence may be the fear powering the fear mongers. Unfortunately for these bishops, there is no Viagra pill which can cure this particular form of impotence. Advocating for Fighting Jesus is not seen as virile, it's seen as venal, or more accurately as theologically infantile.

Come next week, our bishops would do well to really ponder these election results and not blind themselves to the fact that saber rattling from the pulpit had the opposite of it's intended effect. An adult laity said 'no' to the use of childish threats. An adult laity doesn't need to be parented. It has a right to be heard, not a need to be herded. This is a distinction too many of our bishops don't want to acknowledge.

That being the case, they and their true believing followers ought to follow the lead of the evangelicals who they so admire, and start their own version of some Catholic mega church, based out of, I know, COLORADO SPRINGS. They already have their media empire in EWTN. This way they could leave the rest of us heretical followers of Peace Jesus in peace.

Obama's Victory And How The Culture Warriors Used It

Here's the Catholic Values folks assessment of Barack Obama's and the Democrats land slide win. I mentioned at the end of my post yesterday, that the passage of the anti gay initiatives pretty much insured the 'dominionist take the world for Jesus folks' would let those victories blind them to the truth of the election.

Conservatives see same-sex marriage victories as proof of Americans' values

Ken Blackwell / Connie Mackey

CNA STAFF, Nov 6, 2008 / 03:01 am (CNA).- U.S. conservative leaders reacted to Tuesday’s election results by noting that although Americans elected Barack Obama as the next president, they also agreed with conservative values on same-sex marriage.

In a phone conference on Wednesday morning, President of Let Freedom Ring Colin Hanna summarized the election by describing what it was not. “The election was not a landslide, the election was not a realignment election, and the election was not an ideological election.” (I don't have a clue how to respond to this, this is a staggeringly blind assessment. Even Idaho elected a democratic senator. See this map)

“It was not an ideological election because the winner campaigned entirely on an argument of new politics, a different kind of rhetoric, a moving away from left versus right, red versus blue, conservative versus liberal. So clearly the reception of the American people of a bi-partisan, non-partisan approach was a major factor in Obama’s success.”

No one could observe this and conclude that it was also an ideological election, Hanna remarked. (This is true, only if you Ms. Hanna, are desperately trying to convince us that you and your associates aren't ideological.)

Ken Blackwell, the vice chairman of the 2008 RNC Platform Committee, agreed with Hanna’s observation, saying, “What I found interesting was California and Florida where Barack won overwhelmingly and where our issue won convincingly.” (More on this later.)

Referring to the California Proposition 8 and the Florida Proposition 2, Blackwell clarified, “It’s important that some folks understand that we don’t put these issues on the ballot because they are wedge issues or issues to use as political tools. We really put them on the ballot because we think it’s important to get public policy that reflects the desires of the body politic.” (Is this why your consortium of followers had to spend upwards of 50 million dollars in California to 'educate' the body politic?)

Connie Mackey of the Family Research Council Action also stressed that Americans had not changed their values. “Of the 134 races that we did endorse, we only lost 16. And four are undecided right now.” “We don’t just endorse somebody with just an ‘R’ next to their name. They have to be using our issues as they campaign and they have to be devoted to our issues when they’re up on the Hill.” (And how many people with a D after their name did Family Research Council Action endorse? By the way, your numbers don't impress me. All it says is you spent money after very careful assessment. I suspect all these unnamed successes are in very red districts. Show me the names.)
Mackey believes that this success rate shows that “the social issues and the culture of the country still matters.” (At least in selected red districts. The Republican party only gained voters over 2004 in Appalachia and along the Mason/Dickson line in Southern states.)

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, described Obama’s election as a success for the civil rights movement before pointing out that the battle to protect the unborn from abortion is also a human and civil rights battle. (Except for gay civil rights.)

Although, she sees the election results as a political setback, Dannenfelser argued that, “The pro-life movement is just as strong as it ever was and this is not a repudiation in any way of the issues that we are lobbying on in the pro-life movement.” (How is the defeat of every single pro life initiative not at least a strong repudiation of your tactics?)

CNA asked Dannenfelser what she believed was behind the failure of the South Dakota initiative to limit significantly abortion, given the strength of the pro-life movement.
“You do have to reach people where they are, and it could have been a miscalculation of where the consensus is in the state. But also, it could be that the consensus was overwhelmed by being far out spent, which we are every single time in these propositions,” she told CNA. (You mean you lost here exactly the way you won in California? And what your really saying is it's not about a public consensus, it's really boils down to money--a form of tyranny by dollars.)

Shifting back to the general election, Dannenfelser said the biggest question that president-elect Obama will have to answer is whether he will go forward with his promise to sign the Freedom of Choice Act or whether he will try to find common ground with pro-life advocates.

The SBA List president summed up any losses suffered by conservatives as due to economic conditions and not because of conservative principles. “We lost on a different battleground. We lost on an economic playing field, not on the merits of the pro-life issue,” she emphasized. (Excuse me, you lost because your 'conservative principles' pro life values voters elected the neo con republicans who have destroyed our economy, placed us in two unwinnable wars, callously abandoned New Orleans, assaulted our constitutional rights, and fomented unbelievable division in this country on IDEOLOGICAL principles. You were instrumental in creating the very playing field you were trounced on, and your standard bearer Ms Palin, was a major factor in torpedoing McCain's election chances amongst moderates and independents. You lost because of the face you see in the mirror.)

******************************************************************

Ken Blackwell's observation is fascinating to me as well:

“What I found interesting was California and Florida where Barack won overwhelmingly and where our issue won convincingly.”

I too find it fascinating that in both states the religious right went after minority voters, especially black and hispanic. They were hoping for a 'Barack effect' for their anti gay intiatives. To foster that effect, the pitch they used was that the 'gay agenda' was not marriage equality. It was to get into schools to teach their children about the 'gay lifestyle'. To preach heresy concerning the 'sanctity of marriage' as God intended it from Adam and Eve, (that between one man and one woman), and to teach our children it's OK to indulge in biblically condemned sexuality. The underlying unstated message of the school argument was to engender thoughts of pedophilia and sexual predation by gay teachers using this message to groom young victims--their children.

As much as it pains me, I must also admit their strategy worked partly because of Barack Obama's constitutional understanding of civil marriage vs sacramental marriage. This allowed Obama to be both for civil unions and against gay marriage. Needless to say, the right didn't make this distinction and proponents of gay marriage completely missed the ball until it was too late.

So it shouldn't come as a shock that the demographic with the highest voting percentages for prop 8, were minority groups of child bearing and child rearing years. Blacks and Hispanics, themselves the victims of biblically inspired bigotry, have now become righteous purveyors of biblically inspired bigotry. I guess this now makes them full blooded American bigots.

That makes me sad. What makes me mad, is this whole campaign was masterminded and principally financed by the two mainstream religions which have the most abysmal track record when it comes to child sexual abuse, Roman Catholicism and Mormonism. Both of the ruling elite of these churches have used gays as a smoke screen to hide their own pedophilia problems. No wonder there's so much glee when defeating gay marriage proposals.

Progressives will have to deal with the 'take the world over for Jesus' people for quite a while longer. The righteous right still have their wedge issue, and they spent millions to make sure they did. Their lone victory is more than enough to blind them to the truth of the much greater Obama victory because they got democratic minorities to vote WITH THEM.

No the culture wars aren't over. More's the pity.

Yes We Did!

I know I won't soon be forgetting November 4, 2008 and neither will my daughter. Somewhere on here I've posted about November, 2000 when she and I watched Florida get taken from Gore's column and listed as a toss up. At that very moment I lost all faith in the American electioneering system. Hanging chads in Florida elected George W Bush. And then came Ohio in 2004 and here again came George W Bush.

Since I didn't vote in 2006, yesterday I found myself having to re register. I was totally shocked at the length of the line I would now get to stand in in order to vote. I thought long and hard about voting, but then there came all those memories from previous years, and I decided I would stick it out. It took me an hour and forty minutes to cast my vote.

I stood in line with people I didn't know and found myself in the most interesting conversations where we talked about everything except who we were voting for. When another woman and I had made it to the front of the line, a octogenarian with a walker came through the door and I instantly offered her a place in front of us--old training hard to break.

My new friend was a nano second behind me in extending the same offer, which the woman accepted, if even with a little embarrassment. I told her not to worry, as I was pretty sure I would cancel out her vote. People cracked up around us, and the mood of the line lightened.

After voting I called my daughter and warned her what she was in for. She had to work all day, and so would be in line with the end of the work day crowd. For her, and two of our other young friends, the wait was slightly over two hours. She finally made it over to my house to watch the election returns with a great deal of pride and her own stories.

Before I left to vote, I had seen video of the long lines across the nation, but never ever considered the fact I myself might also stand in such a line. This is Montana. I got introduced to the new Montana.

Although McCain eventually won here, his narrow margin of victory, and the fact our democratic senator won by some 75%, amply demonstrates that Montana is no longer a sure thing for Republicans. It would have been nice to see Montana turn blue, but it was really encouraging to see Indiana stay yellow, and Virginia, and North Carolina, and stay that way until 8:00 pm when the west coast polls closed and all hell broke loose in my little house. Yes, we did! Start the cell phone calls and text messages.

This morning I viewed the reaction around the world and saw more smiles and more hope in more countries, bringing home to me again, just how much the neocons had destroyed the world's hope in America.

Standing in line for a hour and forty minutes, more or less just to cancel the vote of an octogenarian, also drove home to me how much the neocons had destroyed my hope in America. I also understood then, that hope is hard to totally kill. I obstinately stuck it out. Yes, I did!

And so did my daughter and her friends, and so did millions of other Americans. Yes, we did!

And so 2008 was not a repeat of 2000, and 2004, and those obstinate yellow states finally did turn blue. Yes, they did.

Now I'm waiting for the results of prop 8 in California, and not with much hope. In spite of last night's landslide victory for a black man whose mandate crosses all lines, it looks like gays are still on the outside looking in. The last minority with out equal rights. The last minority for whom the religious right can still use as a wedge to separate us and divide us. Yes, they can.

God's Wealthy Warriors And Some Thoughts On Redistribution

As you know, I've been doing a lot of research this week on the New Apostolic Reformation and it's offshoots Joel's Army, and The Third Wave, and sadly, finding too many intersections with conservative Catholicism. This is especially true for the pro life movement and certain Charismatic groups.

There is a lot of money behind these groups but it's difficult to find any mainstream reporters who have done much research on the money ties. Some information is now coming out about a few of these ties as they pertain to individuals, and as this pertains specifically to the money behind Prop 8 in California. The article deals with the reclusive Howard F Ahmanson Jr.

Proposition 8 in California truly is a micro view of the interesting conglomeration of moneyed interests which fuel the political divisions on social issues in this country. In this instance they include the Knights of Columbus, the USCCB, the Mormon Church, the New Apostolic Reformation under Larry Engel, and individual wealthy donors affiliated with the aforementioned churches. At face value these interests have very little in common theologically except an apparent need to prevent gays from enjoying equal protection under the law. However, if you look a little closer, there is another strain.

All of these socially conservative groups have at their core, a real need to return to the God of the Old Testament. This is a patriarchal God who wreaks a great deal of revenge on violators of His laws and one who demands His people (Israel) conform as a society to His rule. This is also a God who repeatedly punishes the entire nation of Israel for their indiscretions. It should not be missed that in the Old Testament most of these punishable offenses are committed by the ruling class.

Given this notion it should not be too surprising that the proponents (Prophets, Apostles, and Bishops) of this thinking are obsessed with political power. They are the ruling class who will save not just America, but the entire world from God's justified wrath.

This is not the God of the Jesus of the New Testament. Jesus disdained interfering in secular government, talked about personal conversion, and called God his Father. Jesus did not relate to God as a ruler, but as a parent. Jesus taught personal conversion, not social dominion. He spoke of converting society one at a time from the bottom up, not the top down.

Jesus spoke of the power of love, rejecting the love of power. He was not misogynist.

It's not surprising then, that the New Testament is not the part of the bible from which these groups are being 'inspired'-except for some of Paul's letters. To these folks, the Old God had it right, the new God of Jesus is in some sense too feminine, too misled by love, and too naive to really understand how power works in this world. In their minds the Holy Spirit gets it, and so does Satan.

The Holy Spirit then becomes the 'alter christus' who inspires his followers to combat secularism and gives them the 'Gifts of the Spirit' which are the sword and shield of God's new army. That these 'Gifts of the Spirit' are identical to the psychic talents of New Agers, even down to orbs, is of course because Satan gifts his army with counter fit expressions. (Excuse me while I bang my head on my desk.)

There's a part of me that wants to be sarcastic about all of this, but I can't because this trend in Christianity is very powerful and very well funded. They offer a real carrot, experiences which seem to transcend human reality plus a spiritually righteous life and death cause in which to use them.

The not so hidden agenda is really secular power and the redistribution of wealth from the unrighteous heretical secularist unbelievers, to the ruling elite of God's army. This is the army tasked with cleansing the Earth for the return of gentle Jesus. Apparently if the world and all it's wealth is in their Apostolic and Righteous hands, it will be safe for the gentle and innocent Jesus. (He who might be best symbolised in the unborn.)

All of the above is why we haven't heard the last about gay marriage and abortion and Sarah Palin. This is an army whose leadership has already gotten quite heady on the redistribution of wealth. Gold toilets come to mind, 150,000 dollar Nieman Marcus/Sax 5th Avenue spending sprees, huge tech savvy mega churches, and world travel for certain Kenyan and Nigerian prelates at the behest of their rich US counterparts.

Lest anyone think Obama's landslide victory is going to change any of this, think again. These are world wide stakes, not just the US. They have had their victories (as well as this massive US presidential defeat). Prop 8, God forbid, maybe another victory, but so has the virtual break up of the Anglican church, the infighting in the Presbyterian and Methodist Churches, and lest I forget the polarization of Catholicism.

No, we haven't begun to hear the last from this movement, but tonight I will toast to Mr. Obama and the American people, and tomorrow I'll worry about Colorado Springs and the Institute for Religion and Democracy.

The Antithesis Of Sarah Palin

In my book Rachel Maddow is the antithesis of Sarah Palin. Rachel is the one good thing I've gotten out of all the coverage I've watched this election season. I'm one of the hoards of new viewers which propelled the Rachel Maddow Show past Larry King Live in the ratings wars. Her style has forced me to re evaluate every other talking head I currently watch. I found most of them suffered in comparison--well, maybe not Anderson Cooper. I will always have a soft spot in my heart for Anderson Cooper because of his coverage of Katrina.

A lot of my friends are watching Rachel Maddow, and they're doing it because she is smart, really smart, funny, really funny, and really nice. Some of them are voting for McCain.

Rachel is not afraid to treat her viewing audience as if it has both a brain and a vocabulary and she assumes they can pay attention to a topic for more than 10 seconds. She treats Pat Buchanan with dignity even as she skewers his commentary, and he respects her in spite of it. She didn't treat Barack Obama any differently than she does Pat Buchanan. Like with any of her guests she made Obama get deeper with his answers and didn't let him get away with sound bites.

This is such a refreshing change. Rachel also doesn't interview a pack of argumentative guests at the same time, which probably has a lot to do with maintaining the civility of her show. My daughter is as much in love with Rachel as she is Anderson Cooper. Actually now that I think about it, they do both kind of have an innocent kind of look, and both are not afraid to use self deprecating humor. Personally, I'm glad my daughter has found another talking head to idolize because I was getting sick of all the Anderson Cooper references.

***NOTE TO McCAIN CAMPAIGN*** You should have let John be John. The two best things I saw him do were the Al Smith Dinner and SNL. The only two times I even caught a glimmer of the old John McCain and it was bittersweet.

The reason I think Rachel serves as the perfect antithesis to Sarah Palin isn't because she's a lesbian, although that in itself would qualify in some people's minds. It's because she is flat brilliant, a Stanford/Rhodes scholar, a social activist rather than an evangelical activist, and she makes totally different assumptions about the people she is talking to.

She doesn't dumb down the conversation to stereotypical Joe Sixpack's assumed level. On the contrary, she assumes Joe is fully capable of understanding the points she is trying to make. If Joe has no problem getting the intricacies of NFL offenses, Joe is capable of getting the intricacies of the Wall Street melt down. She will not accept the dumbing down of America's political discourse, nor will she accept it's current state of incivility.

She and Pat Buchanan prove it is possible to disagree fundamentally and still be nice about it. You do not have to dehumanize your opponent to make your points, and you can still give the the respect of HEARING what they are saying while still disagreeing with them. Wonder of wonders, it's perfectly acceptable to even admit they might have a point you hadn't considered before. This is so refreshing. It's dialogue, not diatribe.

With the political season coming to a close, and having given MSNBC a huge ratings boost, I hope that Rachel's numbers keep increasing rather than decreasing as some experts expect will happen after the election. Sure's she's liberal and on MSNBC, but it's not so much what she says that makes me one of her ratings boosters, it's how she runs her show.

If Maddow was in the conservative camp, and had gotten politically active, the Hillary folks would have really had to take a look at a McCain/Maddow ticket, and Sarah Palin would still be in Alaska.

Sarah Palin should spend the next four years watching Rachel Maddow and take some lessons in how to treat the vast majority of the American electorate and her political oponents. We don't need any more attack dogs with lipstick.

They Not Only Killed My Political Party, They're Killing Catholicism

I don't know if I stated this before, but I used to be a Republican. OK, I was a maverick Republican, a 'tweener' who leaned more towards Goldwater's thinking than Reagan's. I really did not believe that the US government should use it's military to police the world, nor should we get involved in each other's personal business---for instance, people's bedrooms or their sexual proclivities. I believed there was a common good, but we were also a very pluralistic society and the legal definition of common good should be approached as CONSERVATIVELY as possible.

And then came Ronald Reagan with his blatant appeal to the Religious evangelical right, and so began both the destruction of the Republican Party and 'incredible shrinking' Catholic Church amongst cradle American Catholics.

Things have sunk to such levels of verbal slime, that now Catholic Democrats are called both evil and unpatriotic. This situation angers me, such that it's difficult for me to write about it with any kind of sensibility, so I offer the following article by Jane Devin from Huffington Post.

When Ronald Reagan began courting the religious right in his bid to win the Presidency, I doubt he knew he was spelling death to the lean tenets of Goldwater conservatism. Yet soon afterward, under the thumb of right-wing religion, the Republican party became a bloated fool, stuffed with hypocrisy, greed, and anti-intellectualism. In 2008, the price is being paid through lost elections and a loss of public trust. (The greed maybe destroying our economy, but it's the anti-intellectualism which will eventually destroy the party.)

While Bush railed about the axis of evil, there was another axis that gathered steam during the Reagan years. The Moral Majority, Focus on the Family, and The Christian Coalition were all formed within years of each other as religiopolitical groups. Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, and Pat Robertson, the respective leaders of these movements, formed a triad that sought to influence politics through a gospel of neo-conservative Christian rhetoric aimed at millions of faithful adherents whose votes, it was hoped, could swing the socio-political pendulum away from progress and back to "traditional values." (Traditional values that mostly go back to the beginning of the twentieth century and found their nexus in the 50's.)

In order to win the votes of the triad's faithful followers, Republican politicians bartered themselves into a hear-no-wrong, see-no-wrong trade-off. This trade-off allowed Falwell to hold sway with politicians, and appear as a respected political pundit on right-wing shows, even after outlandishly insisting that the purple Tinky Winky children's character was gay, or that the anti-Christ was coming in the form of a Jew. He could promote the idea of ending the public school system in favor of church-run schools, as he did in his book, America Can Be Saved, yet still wield considerable influence in Washington. (Somehow my daughter, who was about 8 at the time, picked up on this. "Mom would you tell that guy, that purple does not mean gay. It's my favorite color." I don't know if she really understood what gay was, but she did get loud and clear that he had attached something bad to her favorite color.)

In trading endorsements for blindness, Pat Robertson could say that feminism "is a socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians" -- and even suggest that a nuclear device should be used to blow up the State Department -- yet Senators and other politicians would still appear on his CBN network, even after other controversies, such as the use of Operation Blessing planes for mining activities, splintered his Coalition. (In my opinion Pat Robertson and his CBN network, has done more to foster the anti intellectual bent of the Republican Party than any other source. Which is interesting since he has taken quite the advantage of his own elitist education to promote his own empire.)

Republican politicians continued to cater to James Dobson even after he distorted the research of scientists to promote his anti-gay agenda in Time magazine. Dobson, who operates several non-profits, has used millions in tax-free donations to try to influence nominations for the Supreme Court and to subvert the First Amendment separation of church and State, but legislators, rather than reining in the 800-pound gorilla, quaked under threat of being targeted by Dobson's political media machine. (Pat Dobson, with his moneyed tentacles, has been the biggest source of foment with in Catholicism, and guess what, it's all based out of Colorado Springs. That bastion of the New Apostolic Reformation whose goal is to take over the world for Christ, and save Catholicism from the demon known as the 'Queen of Heaven'.)

There was a mutuality to the trade-off between the Christian right and its adopted Republican politicians. In exchange for being given credibility and influence in Washington, the triad and their various branches would justify the intrusive Patriot Act, torture at Guantanamo Bay, and massive governmental debt to their audience of millions -- if politicians would stand against Roe v. Wade. They wouldn't make a stink about outrageously expensive no-bid contracts -- if it meant that their "faith-based" charities could get governmental grants. They would support war against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 -- if politicians went on the record against same-sex marriage. (The interesting thing is they themselves are bringing about exactly that of which they accuse others. It's their fixation on these issues and their willingness to ignore other major world issues that allowed Bush and company to bring about the destruction of our economy and our place in the world. It's not gays who have proven themselves the threat to Western civilization, it's anti gay proponents.)

They would ignore or excuse the fact that a large percentage of corporations paid no taxes at all -- if it meant no new taxes for them. They'd support Bush even as he misled the public about weapons of mass destruction, and they'd excuse the unethical actions of henchmen like Rove and Libby -- if it meant that school vouchers would be put on the agenda.

Working in tandem with their pocketed politicians, the Christian right would rejoice at the FCC's repeal of the Fairness Doctrine, which gave rise to a slew of unchecked right-wing programs that hawked the myth of a vast "liberal media", even as markets narrowed and became dominated by a handful of corporations. (And these handful of corporations are all fundamentally right wing, but not opposed to making money off the 'left wing elitist liberal press.)

Right-wing provocateurs like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh were encouraged to truck in fear, loathing, and controversy, mirroring the religious right's mission to divide the country into red/blue, good/evil, conservative/liberal, Christian/un-Christian factions.

There was no room for the moderate middle in this "with us or against us" equation, as witnessed by the public shredding of moderate Republican politicians like Arlen Specter, a Jew, and a vocal critic of the Christian right. "What some are trying to do is take over the party," Specter warned in 1994. "That's bad for the Republican Party and bad for the country." Specter became a target of the religious right for his support of Roe v. Wade, and his refusal to bend to the will of religious power brokers like Dobson, who attempted to use his influence to block Specter's 2005 bid to become chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Today, Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann are among two of the more prominent Republican figures that have become mouthpieces for the religious right. Their attempts to split a diverse, multi-cultural country into "pro-America" and "anti-America" factions have left little doubt who is to be considered patriotic and who is not. (And who is Christian and who is not, and lest anyone doubt it, Catholics are not real Christians.)

Those who are right-wing Christians -- anti-abortion, anti-feminism, anti-gay, anti-evolution, anti-taxes, pro-gun, and pro-deregulation -- and who are willing to ignore or justify massive governmental debt, corporate welfare, bank nationalization, unjustified war, falling markets, depleted retirement accounts, record foreclosures, government spying, broken treaties, torture, the impingement of a free press, the subversion of the First Amendment, the hiding of official records, the missing millions from Halliburton, and more - are patriotic. Everyone else is not. (Which leads this Catholic to wonder, what do some bishops think they are doing by aligning themselves so closely to these anti Catholic groups by stressing abortion as the only issue on which to base a vote? What are they really exchanging in giving their voices to this agenda?)

Barry Goldwater once said

that he was "sick and tired of the political preachers" that tried to dictate his morality.

"And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism."

Goldwater, I think, would be rolling in his grave at the hijacking of his party by religious fundamentalists. It remains to be seen if the Republican party can recover from its long and seedy affair with the extreme right, but there is no doubt that many socially moderate, fiscally conservative Republicans are waiting for a leadership that is driven more by Goldwater ethics than by the bogeyman of a separatist, neo-con God.

************************************************************

It maybe that after Tuesday's democratic landslide that the Republican party will decide to splinter into two groups, true Goldwater conservatives, and the religious right. If such a thing would happen, it would be the best thing the Republican party has done for America in 30 years.

It would leave the religious right with out a major party and force them to declare their real agenda.

I suspect that agenda has a lot to do with taking over the world for Jesus. Seems to me Jesus was already offered the world and rejected it. I certainly haven't had any messages that he's changed his mind, but apparently Jesus is speaking a different thing to the religious right---at least in their minds---- and that message includes world dominion by the anointed few. Where have I seen that before? More on this tomorrow.

So Much For McCain

From CNN Political Producer Peter Hamby

Palin signs made an appearance at a Florida rally – McCain signs did not.

POLK CITY, Florida (CNN) — At a boisterous Sarah Palin rally in Polk City, Florida on Saturday afternoon, one name was surprisingly absent from the campaign décor — John McCain’s.
Watch: Palin campaigns in Polk City, FL Saturday

Looking around the Fantasy of Flight aircraft hangar where the rally took place, one could see all the usual reminders that it was a pro-McCain event. There were two large “Country First” banners hung on the walls along with four enormous American flags meant to conjure the campaign’s underlying patriotic theme. Many of the men and women in the audience wore McCain hats and t-shirts.

But on closer inspection, the GOP nominee’s name was literally nowhere to be found on any of the official campaign signage distributed to supporters at the event.

Members of the audience proudly waved “Country First” placards as Palin delivered her stump speech. Those signs were paid for by the Republican National Committee.

The other sign handed out to supporters read “Florida is Palin Country,” but those signs were neither paid for by the Republican National Committee nor the McCain campaign. In small print, the signs were stamped with the line “Paid for and authorized by Putnam for Congress" — as in, the re-election campaign of Florida congressman Adam Putnam, whose district skirts Polk City.
In fact, Putnam’s name was considerably more prominent than was McCain’s — his campaign had placed a number of large “Putnam for Congress” banners

around the event site.

***************************************************************************

Apparently we have a congressional candidate who thinks McCain's name is poison for his campaign, and a Vice Presidential candidate who thinks McCain's name is poison for her future.

Who ever thinks Sarah Palin is not politically ambitious and is nothing more than a social conservative mother of five, should seriously do a reality check. This woman is most definitely on a personal mission and I don't think it has much to do with being a patriotic American.

I have no sympathy for John McCain, a man I used to admire a great deal. It is apparent to me that he was so blinded by his own ambition he couldn't see it another political predator. It looks to me like the Republican party is on a feeding frenzy on their own dead. I'm impressed. NOT!