The only negative to the implosion of rightwing fundamentalism is that it’s just not happening fast enough.
via: confrontingbabble-on
Bill Keller’s website: http://www.votingforsatan.com
NOTE: Bill Keller has also claimed that President Obama is God’s enemy.
But look, I guess it’s good to know who’s been officially appointed to stand in judgement of all people and speak for GOD (when Rick Santorum is busy, of course): good ol’ Bill Keller.
David Brooks in the NYTimes: “Romney’s comment is a country-club fantasy. It’s what self-satisfied millionaires say to each other. It reinforces every negative view people have about Romney.”
“The Republican Party, and apparently Mitt Romney, too, has shifted over toward a much more hyperindividualistic and atomistic social view — from the Reaganesque language of common citizenship to the libertarian language of makers and takers. There’s no way the country will trust the Republican Party to reform the welfare state if that party doesn’t have a basic commitment to provide a safety net for those who suffer for no fault of their own.
“The final thing the comment suggests is that Romney knows nothing about ambition and motivation. The formula he sketches is this: People who are forced to make it on their own have drive. People who receive benefits have dependency.
“But, of course, no middle-class parent acts as if this is true. Middle-class parents don’t deprive their children of benefits so they can learn to struggle on their own. They shower benefits on their children to give them more opportunities — so they can play sports, go on foreign trips and develop more skills.
“People are motivated when they feel competent. They are motivated when they have more opportunities. Ambition is fired by possibility, not by deprivation, as a tour through the world’s poorest regions makes clear.”
It’s interesting that some Catholic leaders have spoken out about Paul Ryan and how his love of Ayn Rand’s economic philosophy (screw the poor) actually conflicts sharply with the ethics of Christian behavior.
I wonder if the LDS Church will ever speak out about Mitt Romney‘s embrace of the same libertarian philosophy? Or his campaign of lying daily? Especially since he represents their religion so publicly.
My guess would be no – they will never speak out against Mitt. The Corporation of the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would never allow that. In fact I’m sure they’re even willing to overlook the money he made with Stericycle, as long as they received the required tithe from any profits made.
The Romney campaign is going to begin allowing the traveling press corps to attend a Mormon service each week with the Romneys from now through the election. Buzzfeed’s intrepid McKay Coppins (who is also a Mormon) wrote about attending a service with the Romneys yesterday, as a member of the first group of traveling pool reporters allowed to do so:
“Shortly after entering the chapel, Mitt and Ann filed into an aisle with their son Tagg, his wife, and their six children, while a handful of reporters took seats in the back of the chapel. As my colleagues surveyed their unremarkable surroundings, they commented on how unremarkable it all looked: a generic high-ceilinged room full of nondescript parishioners. What I saw, though, was a slice of Mormon Americana — a buffet of congregational quirks that any Latter-day Saint would recognize.”
Coppins goes onto detail a bit of the service: hymns, bread and water passed out to the congregation which instead of calling it communion, Coppins describes it as “the ordinance, which represents repentance for past sins and a renewed commitment to avoid them in the future. It’s a key tenet of Mormonism — this notion of constant spiritual course-correction.” The speakers at this service were from the Marriott family (THE Marriotts? Probably.). Ann sang with some other women… and it was all so very average and normal (or unremarkable, generic, and nondescript as Coppins describes it). NOTHING TO SEE HERE, FOLKS.
It’s interesting that McKay Coppins didn’t mention that a Mormon chapel (church, temple) won’t have any crosses or crucifixes — and maybe that’s what struck the other reporters (if they were used to Protestant or Catholic churches)? Or maybe they did remark on that fact. Or maybe not. And maybe Coppins wouldn’t even be aware that might seem odd to Protestants and Catholics.
In place of crosses, apparently there will be other symbols found, and usually (always?) the golden Angel Moroni with the trumpet. Many sites online make these other symbols sound like a huge conspiracy theory, by the way — masonic, pagan, occult — but that’s said about symbols in Catholic and Protestant churches as well. And, to me, that’s interesting.
If anyone reading this is a practicing Mormon, please verify the “no crosses / crucifixes” thing. I’m almost sure that’s true. I’ve tried to find out why there would be no crosses / crucifixes in Mormon churches (and why Mormons do not wear crosses or crucifixes) and all I can find are two explanations: 1) the cross symbolizes Jesus Christ’s death and Mormons prefer to focus on the resurrected Christ; and 2) Mormons believe Christ’s atonement happened in the Garden of Gethsemane and not on the cross. Maybe there’s another / better reason?
I realize Coppins works for Buzzfeed (one of Romney’s online PR firms) but it seems like he would do his readership, the Romneys, and other Mormons a service by explaining differences like this one to non-Mormons, instead of trying to completely white-out the service as something really super average and generic. Like he’s trying to say, See? Mormonism is almost like nothing happened at all…
“Our Christian tradition teaches that we are to treat the poor with dignity and to prioritize the poor in our policies as a society. At a time when millions are struggling financially, it is degrading to talk about the ‘dependency’ of people hurting in this economy, as Gov. Romney did recently.” — The Franciscan Action Network (FAN), a Catholic faith-based advocacy and civic engagement organization, strongly criticizing Mitt Romney’s recent ads and rhetoric regarding welfare programs and welfare recipients. (via: azspot)
I would imagine, but I couldn’t say for sure, that this Christian tradition is similar between Mormons and Catholics. But the political agendas of Romney and Ryan — both of whom profess to be Mormon and Catholic, respectively — are not inspired by any of the teachings of Jesus Christ, as far as I can see.
It seems like Christianity only matters to far-right conservatives when they can use it as a weapon against a political enemy. Sometimes atheists can also be found wearing sheep’s clothing.
Andrew Sullivan caught a surprising statement from a Fox “New” anchor:
“This country has a long history of discrimination against certain groups. Eventually we wind up getting it right. Right? Against women, against blacks, the civil rights movement and so on. And in justifying that discrimination when it was in place, some folks turn to the Bible and turn to their religious beliefs and said we have to have slavery because it’s in the Bible. Women have to be second-class citizens because that’s in the Bible. Blacks and whites can’t get married because that’s in the Bible. That wound up in a case. A judge wrote that in an opinion, which the Supreme Court ultimately struck that down, saying that’s not right, judge—the Equal Protection clause says you can’t do that. Why is gay marriage any different?” — Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly.
Of course Dr. Robert Jeffress, to whom Kelly was speaking, responded with an argument about polygamy—in Utah no less! Let’s think about that… hey! Fun fact — which presidential candidate actually comes from a family which actually practiced polygamy: 1) President Obama or 2) Mitt Romney.
The bottom line is that fundamentalist Christians pick and choose which verses and commandments they’ll follow from the Bible and which verses they’ll ignore. You’ve found a verse about homosexuality being a sin in the Bible? Good for you. What about the thousands of other sins that are described in the Bible which you happily ignore? Where does it say homosexuality and gay marriage are against the law in the Constitution?
A particular sect of Christians shouldn’t be inflicting their BELIEFS on the entire country in the form of political ideology and our nation’s laws. Your beliefs are your business and my beliefs are mine. That’s America and that’s separation of church and state.
Christian fundamentalists should think about this a little harder: what if Mormons became the largest sect of Christianity in America? Do you really want their particular beliefs to be imposed on everyone else, to have their religious practices held up by one political party as the law of the land? The Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States are there for a reason — to protect us from the religious zealotry of the few over the many.
The Raw Story: “Media mogul Rupert Murdoch weighed in on the Tom Cruise-Katie Holmes divorce story Sunday, saying he thinks Scientologists are “creepy” and possibly even evil.”
Watch Katie Holmes and Scientology story develop. Something creepy, maybe even evil, about these people.—
Rupert Murdoch (@rupertmurdoch) July 01, 2012
…
“[...] Murdoch’s Scientology comment generated a surge of Twitter traffic, prompting another tweet: “Since Scientology tweet hundreds of attacks. Expect they will increase and get worse and maybe threatening.
““Still stick to my story,” he added.
“A short time after his Scientology tweet, Murdoch was asked his views on Mormonism — in the spotlight currently as Mormon Mitt Romney takes on President Barack Obama for the White House.
““Mormonism a mystery to me, but Mormons certainly not evil,” the News Corp tycoon replied.”
President Obama’s religious beliefs have been a major issue for teagelicals for over three years now. Raw Story reports that one in five Republicans believe the president is a Muslim: “18 percent of Republicans believed Obama was Muslim, even though the President is a church-going Christian. Both Obama’s religion and his birthplace have been points of controversy in his public career, Gallup noted. These data show that in terms of his religion, most Americans do not adhere to the belief that he is a Muslim. However, the fact that almost one in five Republicans do hold this belief suggests the potential for continuing controversy on this issue in the months ahead.”
Related: Mitt’s Mormon army mobilizes
Note: The Angel Moroni is a registered trademark of the LDS Church.
FT.com reports: Mr Romney enjoys a 90 per cent approval rating in Utah and he shares a religion – Mormonism – with as many as 70 per cent of the state’s residents.The Romney campaign is planning to harness this energy by deploying an army of Utah supporters, like Mr Harkness, to states where the presidential race is close, such as neighbouring Nevada and Colorado. Such efforts could be crucial in battleground states that will decide the election.
Next week, the state’s Republican National Committee will send its first busloads of members – as many as 180 – to the Romney campaign “victory centre” in Mesquite, Nevada, to talk about their ground-game for winning the state.
In addition to hitting the neighbouring states, the Romney campaign and the RNC are also planning to use the energised Utahns to put “boots on the ground” further afield in places such as California and Idaho too.
WHAT ROMNEY / REPUBLICANS STAND FOR———————————————
Is Mormonism Different Than Other Religions? – I also don’t think Romney’s religion should be ruled entirely out of bounds for discussion. He is running in a party that explicitly states there is no solid separation of religion and politics. And the current president was pummeled mercilessly for the more radical teachings of his church in Chicago. And Obama was just a member of the congregation – not a former official in the church, like Romney, whose entire identity is bound up with a very particular religion. Mormonism, in other words, should not be tackled differently than any other faith; but neither can it be completely exempted from examination in this election. When a future president puts on white robes and enters a secret Temple on a Sunday, it will be as big a cultural shift as having a black man in the Oval Office. I think Romney should pre-empt bigoted attacks with his own account of how his faith affects his life and politics. Just as candidate Obama did. – Andrew Sullivan
Romney’s ENTIRE platform: If you vote out Obama, you’ll feel better – “This may be the most explicit version we’ve seen of the Romney camp’s intended message: if you’re angry or frustrated by your current circumstances, or about how things are going, vote the guy in charge out, and it will make you feel better. The game plan: to get swing voters to cast their vote almost entirely as an expression of frustration and disillusionment with the economic status quo, and by extension with Obama himself, without thinking too hard about the true nature of the alternative Romney is offering.” — Greg Sargent
The dog that caught the car: What if the Supreme Court actually overturns Obamacare? — In other words, Republicans are offering voters an implausibly rosy proposition: Enjoy the popular pieces of the Affordable Care Act but don’t worry about the unpopular components. […]As a short-term political posture, it has served them well. But now that the Supreme Court might give them what they want, they’re forced to deal with the reality of what it would mean. And that’s a huge wake-up call for the party, especially one without a clear leader to herd the cats as they figure out their next move. — TPM
Romney’s refusal to take on Trump a sign of his “strength” — Anonymous Romney advisers tell Buzzfeed how strategically clever and how tough they’ve been in taking the fight to Obama in an effort to appeal to red meat conservatives, with one example being the refusal to disavow Donald Trump. As I noted here the other day, the story Team Romney is now telling is that standing up to Trump’s birtherism would represent surrender (a la John McCain) to the liberal media, and not doing so is actually a sign of his strength. — Greg Sargent
More proof that Rep. Allen West (R-FL) is a complete and certifiable wackadoodle.
WHAT THE PRESIDENT / DEMOCRATS STAND FOR ————————————
Obama Wants to Break Republican “Fever” — “I believe that if we’re successful in this election — when we’re successful in this election — that the fever may break,” Obama said at a fundraiser in Minnesota. “Because there’s a tradition in the Republican Party of more common sense than that.” Republicans may be more helpful on issues such as jobs, debt reduction and clean energy because they won’t be so concerned about defeating him at the polls, the president said. “My hope, my expectation, is that after the election — now that it turns out that the goal of beating Obama doesn’t make much sense because I’m not running again — that we can start getting some cooperation again,” Obama said. [...] “2008 was a significant election, obviously. But John McCain believed in climate change. John believed in campaign-finance reform. He believed in immigration reform. There were some areas where you saw some overlap,” Obama said. “In this election, the Republican Party has moved in a fundamentally different direction.” – USA Today
CHART: Bush Vs. Obama On Private And Public Sector Job Creation — Even with today’s disappointing and troubling jobs report, private sector job creation under President Obama has far exceeded private sector job creation under President Bush. 40 months into his presidential term, there are currently more private sector jobs in the economy than when Obama came into office. At the same point in President Bush’s term, the total number of private sector jobs was still down 1.7 percent from where it began. […] But there is one area of job creation where President Bush clearly outshines President Obama: the public sector. Public sector employment is now down 608,000 workers since January 2009, a 2.7 percent decline. At the same point in President Bush’s term, public sector employment was up 3.7 percent. – Think Progress
Because ONLY the rightwing media heard an endorsement an the adjective Bill Clinton used – President Barack Obama’s presidential campaign released a statement noting that Bill Clinton’s praise for Romney’s “sterling business record” did not constitute an endorsement of the Republican nominee. – Team Romney (Buzzfeed)
Clinton says his remarks on Romney were ‘twisted’ — Clinton used an appearance at a rally in Paterson, New Jersery to perform a bit of damage control. “I said, you know, Governor Romney had a good career in business and he was a governor, so he crosses the qualification threshold for him being president,” Clinton told the crowd. “But he shouldn’t be elected, because he is wrong on the economy and all these other issues.” “So today,” Clinton continued, “because I didn’t attack him personally and bash him, I wake up to read all these stories taking it out of context as if I had virtually endorsed him, which means the tea party has already won their first great victory: ‘We are supposed to hate each to disagree.’ That is wrong.” — Raw Story
Bill Clinton Slams Walker For ‘Divide And Conquer’ and ‘constant conflict’ In Wisconsin — “And now they look at Wisconsin, and they see America’s battleground between people who want to work together to solve problems, and people who want to divide and conquer — people who know that creative cooperation is working in America, and people who want constant conflict. And here’s what I want to tell you…I think I know a little bit about what would bring America back, what would bring economic recovery, what would enable us to have broadly shared prosperity. And I’ll tell you, if you go anywhere in America today, believe it or not, there are a lot of places that are already back. And they all have one thing in common. They’re dramatically different, but they all have one thing in common: They are involved in creative cooperation, not constant conflict.” — TPM
Romney Economics: Mitt Romney ran for governor of Massachusetts promising more jobs, decreased debt, and smaller government. By the time Romney left office, state debt had increased, the size of government had grown, and Massachusetts had fallen behind almost every other state in job creation. Other Republicans agree: Romney economics didn’t work then, and it won’t work now.
…
WHAT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY STANDS FOR TODAY—————————–—
Mitt Romney said Monday he wasn’t concerned about Donald Trump’s commitment to the “birther” conspiracy, one day before the GOP presidential candidate hosts a fund-raiser alongside the celebrity business magnate. Asked on his charter plane whether Trump’s questioning of President Barack Obama’s birthplace gave him pause, Romney simply said he was grateful for all his supporters. “You know, I don’t agree with all the people who support me and my guess is they don’t all agree with everything I believe in,” Romney said. “But I need to get 50.1% or more and I’m appreciative to have the help of a lot of good people.” — CNN
Political purity over representing your constituents: Top Conservatives Warn GOP Not To Waver On ‘Obamacare’ — “The Club for Growth supports complete repeal of Obamacare. And complete doesn’t mean partial. It means complete,” said Barney Keller, a spokesman for the group. “We urge the so-called ‘tea party’ Republicans to keep their promises to voters and continue to fight for complete repeal as well.” [...] Dean Clancy, who leads health care advocacy for FreedomWorks, said the group “would be very concerned about bills to resurrect parts of Obamacare.” He said Republicans should take no responsibility for the broken system that would result. “It would be the height of folly for Republicans to say, OK, this is our problem now,” he said. “It’s not the Republicans’ fault if 25-year-old slackers suddenly are dropped from mom and dad’s health insurance policy. It’s not the Republicans’ fault if various other provisions of Obamacare are no longer on the books. … The American people need to have a chance to reflect on the fact that the Democrats basically rammed an unconstitutional bill down their throat.” – TPMDC
Mormonism 101: Is Mitt Romney the ‘White Horse’ in Mormon prophecy? – That’s the one in the old Mormon prophecy attributed to Joseph Smith, which predicts that after the banks fail and when the Constitution is nearing collapse, Mormons flush with wealth — the White Horse, in the prophecy’s metaphor — will rise and lead America back to greatness. [...] “You will see the Constitution of the United States almost destroyed. It will hang like a thread as fine as a silk fiber,” the prophecy has Smith saying. But “it will be preserved and saved by the efforts of the White Horse,” who will “stand by the Constitution of the United States as it was given by the inspiration of God.” There will be a Black Horse — American blacks, as the text is commonly interpreted — that sides with England and France, but eventually they’ll all submit to the White Horse as the religion fulfills its world-conquering destiny in an Armageddon-style war with the Russians—while keeping an eye on the looming threat of China. – POLITICO
How Florida Gov. Rick Scott could steal the election for Mitt Romney – On Wednesday, November 7, Mitt Romney could wake up as the President-elect thanks to one man: Florida Governor Rick Scott. With little fanfare, Scott is undertaking an audacious plan to kick thousands of Floridians off the ballot just before this year’s elections. It’s a sloppy, chaotic and possibly illegal plan. But it just might work. [...] Will history repeat itself in Florida this year? By one estimate, 7000 Florida voters were wrongfully removed from the voter rolls for the 2000 presidential election — 13 times George W. Bush’s margin of victory in that state after the U.S. Supreme Court halted the post-election recount. – Think Progress
WHAT THE PRESIDENT / DEMOCRATS STAND FOR ————————————
Two Republican Nominees: John McCain stood up to the voices of extremism in his party and the Obama campaign asks why Romney won’t do the same. (Hint: because Romney is not in possession of a backbone?):
…
Obama should seize the High Ground – Think about this: Is there anyone in America today who doesn’t either have a pre-existing medical condition or know someone who does and can’t get health insurance as a result? Yet two years after Obama’s health care bill became law, how many Americans understand that once it is fully implemented no American with a pre-existing condition will ever again be denied coverage? “Obamacare is socialized medicine,” says the Republican Party. No, no — excuse me — socialized medicine is what we have now! People without insurance can go to an emergency ward or throw themselves on the mercy of a doctor, and the cost of all this uncompensated care is shared by all those who have insurance, raising your rates and mine. That is socialized medicine and that is what Obamacare ends. Yet Obama — the champion of private insurance for all — has allowed himself to be painted as a health care socialist. – Tom Friedman
LOL – spoof of Mitt’s “Day One” ad (actual audio) – Text shown during audio describing Romney’s repeal of Obamacare and his plan to replace it with a ‘common sense’ health care reform: “If workers get sick, they die. That’s just common sense.” – DailyKos
“A parent should not have to pay a premium to supervise and protect their child on an airplane.” — From a statement Schumer sent the airline trade group, protesting additional fees for window and aisle seats. – AP | Daily Intel
…
The best way to honor war veterans: Stop needlessly creating new ones.—
(@radleybalko) May 28, 2012
…
True patriotism isn’t cheap. It’s about taking on a fair share of the burdens of keeping America going. Those who earn tens of millions of dollars a year but pay less than 14 percent of their incomes in taxes, and argue the rich should pay even less, are not true patriots. Those who defend indefensible tax loopholes, such as the “carried interest” loophole that allows private-equity managers to treat their incomes as capital gains even if they risk no income of their own, are not true patriots. Those who avoid taxes by putting huge amounts of their earnings into IRAs via foreign tax shelters are not true patriots. Those who want to cut programs that benefit the poor — Food stamps, child nutrition, Pell grants, Medicaid — so that they can get a tax cut for themselves and their affluent friends— are not true patriots. — Robert Reich
Seriously, the Brookings Institute is telling us the more the fundagelicals learn about Mormonism, the more they support Romney?
Armed with fresh survey data and a counterintuitive thesis, a new Brookings Institution study released Wednesday makes the compelling case that Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith, long pegged by pundits as a political albatross for the candidate, won’t actually hurt him at the polls in November — and it could even help.
[...] According to the study, a full 82 percent of respondents said they knew “little” or “nothing” about Mormonism, and researchers found that feeding them even a couple sentences of basic information about the church’s beliefs had the ability to swing wide swaths of the electorate in terms of their support for Romney.
In the case of this particular survey, the headline-ready finding is that — among conservatives at least — such information actually increased support for the candidate.
Two things:
The thing is, even if fundagelicals are given more information about this religion, I’ll bet they’ll ignore it, decide it’s too unbelievable. That’s how crazy some of it would sound to them (between you and me, it’s no crazier than every other religion). In the meantime, Romney panders hard to the Wingnut-Christian political agenda of making everyone else’s business a test of their personal ‘religious freedom’ — feeding their obvious plan of one day transforming America into a Christian theocracy.
via: Where are MY magic underpants?
The completely political lens of ‘deeply held religious beliefs’ on marriage:
Social Conservatives “Never Viewed” Marriage “Through A Political Lens Before”?
Al Cardenas, president of the American Conservative Union, made this unusual statement about how social conservatives view marriage:
Social conservatives believe that marriage is a traditional event between a man and a woman. Some do it for moral issues, some do it because of deeply held religious beliefs, and some purely because they think a family should constitute — should be constituted by a man and a woman raising their children. But we never viewed it through a political lens before. It was more viewed as a deeply held religious belief. This puts it in a political context. [...]
Seriously?… That’s… revisionist. Neither Gregory nor the other panelists challenged Cardenas, though their facial expressions during his remarks may have betrayed some incredulity. [...] Back in February, Mitt Romney gave his speech to the 2012 Conservative Political Action Conference — which is hosted every year by Cardenas’ ACU — and one of the headline-grabbing moments from that speech was when Romney boasted of his efforts to combat same-sex marriage in Massachusetts:
[...] On my watch we fought hard and prevented Massachusetts from becoming the Las Vegas of gay marriage. When I am president I will defend the Defense of Marriage Act, and and I will fight for an amendment to our Constitution that defines marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman.
The crowd, of course, loved it. Perhaps the political activists in the audience just didn’t realize that the politician speaking to them was politicizing marriage.
Religious ‘belief’ is the excuse for the war on marriage equality, which is fought on the political battleground:
You may already have seen the following memo on the gay marriage issue from President Bush’s 2004 pollster Jan van Lohuizen… It’s a fascinating document — not so much for the argument it makes (that Republican should essentially embrace marriage or call off the war against it) as the data it advances. Because the numbers it shows pretty convincingly make the argument that the war over gay marriage is basically over.
[...] Recommendation: A statement reflecting recent developments on this issue along the following lines:
“People who believe in equality under the law as a fundamental principle, as I do, will agree that this principle extends to gay and lesbian couples; gay and lesbian couples should not face discrimination and their relationship should be protected under the law. People who disagree on the fundamental nature of marriage can agree, at the same time, that gays and lesbians should receive essential rights and protections such as hospital visitation, adoption rights, and health and death benefits.”
Straight political calculation, based on public opinion, for the best electoral outcomes.
Meanwhile, fundagelicals, your ‘deeply held religious beliefs’? Keep ‘em. They’ve got nothing to do with equality under the LAW. Establishment Republicans agree (secretly, for now) with average people on that much.
Love him or hate him, Bill makes some good points about this question: what constitutes a charity and especially a tax-deductible charity:
…
MAHER TO ROMNEY: Giving to your ‘ridiculous church’ doesn’t count as charity
Maher asserted that the real problem here, however, is that when Romney’s money goes into what Maher first calls his “cult,” then softens to “ridiculous church,” taxpayers have to make up the shortfall. Charitable deductions, he said, take more than 60 billion dollars a year out of the public coffer, money that has to come from other programs and services.
“So it is fair,” he said, “to ask what constitues a charity.”
