First up from the God Machine this week is a look at an unexpected political/theological fight that may have 2012 electoral implications. It's one of those rare controversies in which a high-profile conservative policymaker is facing intense criticism from religious leaders on a high-profile moral issue.
House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) has been on the defensive since the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops criticized his agenda and his religious justification for punishing the poor. The right-wing lawmaker addressed the issue this week at Georgetown University, where several dozen Jesuit scholars and other faculty members had also condemned Ryan's budget. He was met by throngs of protesters -- including "GOP Je$us," who read "Blessed are the rich" from the "Me-Attitudes" -- before arguing that his "reforms" would actually benefit those struggling most. Ryan's pitch included claims that simply weren't true.
But what about the electoral implications? What happens when the political debate over moral issues goes beyond marriage and reproductive health, to include Republican efforts to punish those Americans struggling most? Eliza Newlin Carney reported yesterday on the landscape.
A widening rift between House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Catholic bishops and activists over federal spending captures the power and unpredictability of the Catholic vote this year. [...]
White, politically moderate Catholics will hold the cards this time, said University of Akron political science professor John Green. Although Latino Catholics tend to vote Democratic and highly observant Catholics generally side with the GOP, "middle-of-the-road Catholics are very much up for grabs," Green said, noting this bloc is well-represented in battleground states such as Iowa, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Missouri and Wisconsin. [...]
"Many of those centrist Catholics would probably agree with Catholic intellectuals and with bishops that there are a lot of things wrong with Paul Ryan's budget from a Catholic perspective," he said.
For political observers who immediately connect the Catholic vote with contraception, it's time to consider these issues beyond a narrow culture-war perspective. Ryan appears to be learning this lesson the hard way.
Also from the God Machine this week:
* Rick Perlstein highlights the right's ongoing efforts to make "secularism" a dirty word in 2012 (thanks to reader R.P. for the tip).
* Bishop Daniel R. Jenky, who caused quite a stir with a homily comparing the president to Hitler, is under intense pressure from the faculty at the University of Notre Dame (thanks to reader R.B.).
* And religious right leader Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council, flirted with Birtherism this week, calling questions about President Obama's birthplace "legitimate." Perkins remains an influential figure in Republican politics.
Leave a Comment:
Steve- it's TONY, not Tim, Perkins
Well, IMHO, if Ryan, the Dear Bishop and that Perkins character would live their lives as testament to the God they say they hold dear, instead of trying to play god for the weak minded among us, they'd truly know what bearing false witness is all about! -Kevo
Well said. I always was told to practice what one preaches. Beware of false prophets. This has got to be the worst, nastiest campaign cycle since Kennedy ran in the 60's. Back then it was all about Catholicism. Gentlemen, this is not your best moment when standing before you God!!!
Catholics are suspect for putting the authority of the Pope ahead of the secular government. They in fact are guilty of this, demanding special favors from government for their beliefs and using government to impose their beliefs on others.
The Christian religion does NOT condemn sexuality, only the Pope, who mocks God by condemning abortion, not condemned by the Bible or the gospel. Conversely, Catholics are to be commended for being sympathetic with the poor, even to the point of taking vows of poverty. A vow of poverty is purest moral act.
For a Protestant to denounce abortion is to follow the Pope, causing religious dissonance that they are too stupid to understand.
"several dozen Jesuit scholars and other faculty members"
Fox News has chosen sides in the issue, and, of course picked Ryan. They characterized the letter writers as 'professors' and maybe not even all Catholic!
Playing to their own base, who are suspicious, if not downright hostile, to anyone with 'book larnin'.
Is Fox including Father Tom Reese, a Jesuit priest and a Senior Fellow at Georgetown's Theological Center, as a "professor" and maybe not even Catholic?
Well, there is a trend among conservative Catholics to dismiss a lot of what the Jesuits say, because by and large, they tend to be liberal. (These days at least.) Now, you absolutely can find conservative Jesuits (Fr. Mitch Pacwa, who is involved with EWTN, comes to mind) but overall the trend these days is that they are a liberal order. Therefore, according to many conservative Catholics, they are not "true Catholics." Sigh.
Some Catholics are holier than the Pope, dontcha know?
Perkins is the tea party channel (CNN's)favorite guest.One would think that being an advocate for families he would be a little more family friendly instead of backing republican cut's to the middle class and very poorest in this country.But then again maybe he is just an advocate for families like Romney's that can afford to support his org.
Perkins is also a frequent guest on the day time MSNBC programs - pick a host and he's there at least once a week somewhere. Why? He adds nothing to a discussion of issues, only restating the familiar talking points we hear ad nauseum on FOX and CNN. He's just as prejudiced as Lou Dobbs, yet Dobbs (thank goodness) is not invited to the MSNBC party.
in other "twig" news
liberal group aims equality get out the vote campaign at clergy
The PICO National Network said it is enlisting clergy nationwide to register voters, get out the vote and spread a message of economic equality. Calling the campaign "Land of Opportunity," PICO said its goal is to sign up 75,000 new voters and reach a total of 1 million people who will support its message.
Director of policy, Gordon Whitman, said PICO represents clergy across the theological spectrum who might disagree on social issues such as abortion, but are on the same page when it comes to economic priorities. He said more secular Americans find it difficult to understand "that poverty is a fundamentally moral issue for religious people."
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-faithbased-organization-seeking-to-promote-economic-equality-20120425,0,2116619.story?track=rss&track=lat-email-latimespolitics-April262012
Well, if questions about Obama's birthplace are legitimate, are questions about Rmoney's birthplace also legitimate? And even if he can "prove" that he wasn't born in Mexico, can he prove that he wasn't an anchor baby? And is Utah even part of the US? Seems to me that it is its own country with its own religion, its own laws and never really joined the USA.
This game can be played by two sides, Tony.
That game *may* be played on both sides but it shouldn't be. We should not descend to using their tactics.
But its so much fun to hear them scream when holding up a mirror and using their own tactics against them.
Problem is the rank and file Rightie lacks the requisite intelligence to have the introspective capacity to see themselves in others actions.
They start a fight and are punching someone, that someone punches back, they cry how their getting hit.
The smarter of the Neo-Con uses the return punch as justification for starting the fight.
Notice I wrote 'SMARTER' Con, not SANER.
@TheOnCommingStorm - "That game *may* be played on both sides but it shouldn't be. We should not descend to using their tactics."
I agree in theory, but this mentality of taking the high road has cost Dems elections. Consider Kerry, his refusal to get in the mud with Rove and his cronies cost him. Hiis refusal to seriously refute the SwiftBoat scandal - a recent poll showed that many people still believe those rumors to be true, Kerry stood tall, tried to run a clean campaign on the facts and lost.Meanwhile, Bush can parade around in a flight suit like he is the real war hero and Dan Rather, a brilliant journalist can lose his career by exposing that Bush never served- the story was true only one document proved to have been replicated, it wasn't that the document never existed - it was a copy. But I digress... the point is that I'm glad that Barak is quick to blast back at false claims and while I don't condone the blatant lies that the Rove machine has produced in the past, I do believe Dems need to attack false claims just as fiercely as they are hurled and retaliate by exposing the truth. There is enough truth that if exposed is scarier and more sensationalistic than any lie Rove can dream up. There is a fine line between taking the high road and coming off cowardly. The masses don't understand the intellectual preference of turning the other cheek and letting the truth speak for itself. Its time to fight back or risk losing the battle.
Kitty,
Well said. I was so discourage/disappointed that Mr. Kerry did not fight back.
@dkm, KItty & Joy,
Owing to the fact that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have no problem lying, I think it is time to take a closer look at their political policies.
The Democrat party and its supporters need to dig the dirt and expose the truth.
Lets begin with trickle down economics.
Bishops occupy among the highest level of authority in the Mormon faith. The faithful must donate 10% of their income as "tithing".
Mormon elders and bishops use tithing operate a for-profit organization using tithing to derive profit. Senior clergy, like Mitt Romney, use tithing donations for personal gain.
The Mormon faith has sunk $billions$ into lavish real estate development during the worst homeless crisis since the Great Depression.
Instead of benefitting the needy like most other religions.
This is the "trickle down economics" being peddled by Romney, Ryan, and the rest of the GOP.
There is profound lack of empathy among the senior leadership of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
Actually, no, they don't. A Mormon bishop is at the same level as a Roman Catholic parish priest. And among the Mormons, bishop is a part-time job (without pay). Ditto for the Mormon rank of stake president (equaling an RC bishop). The highest levels of authority in the LDS church are the General Authorities (aka 'The Brethren'): including the First Presidency (the President of the Church plus two counselors), the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, the Quorum of the Seventy (there are more than one of these bodies, actually), and other bits and bobs that I can't be arsed to name (but none of them mere bishops).
If you want to know more (much more) about the subject, I'd recommend D. Michael Quinn's The Mormon Hierarchy: Origins of Power and The Mormon Hierarchy: Extensions of Power.
@MeddlingMonk,
I'm not comfortable being confrontational, but are you aware of how the Roman Catholic church operates?
Mormon Bishops (like Romney) do have the authority to excommunicate members, which is EXACTLY the same level of authority as a Roman Catholic Bishop.
No pay does not equal no control. The key to control is authority, not a paycheck. Certain Roman Catholic priests control specific policies that effect the entire planet. This site has more information on the topic.
You didn't comment on $5 billion Mormon casino "trickle down" boondoggle economics in the middle of the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression.
Presumably that is perfectly OK while millions are unemployed and homeless?
Best Guiding Principle.
W.W.T.D.D
What would the Doctor do?
What does excommunication have to do with it? And why are you so exercised about a question involving a comparison of ecclesiastical hierarchies? It's really just a matter of figuring out what rank fits where, like comparing Navy ranks to Army ranks. The exact formal duties of each rank aren't a part of the question of who is above or below who on the ladder.
A Mormon bishop is in charge of a ward, which is the equivalent to a parish, thus a Mormon bishop is the equivalent to a parish priest. An RC bishop is in charge of a diocese (containing several parishes) which is called a stake (containing several wards) in the Mormon church, and the man in charge of a stake is called the stake president. It's a simple, dull, bureaucratic question of relative rank in the two hierarchies. Thus:
stake = diocese --> stake president = bishop
ward = parish --> bishop = priest
Even if the power to excommunicate was something key, which it isn't, Mormon bishops do not have the power to excommunicate that you seem to believe. That function is handled by disciplinary councils which may be convened at the ward level (and would include the bishop) or at the stake level, depending on the individual
A question of excommunication involving an adult male (holding the Melchizedek priesthood) is handled at the stake level and does not involve the ward bishop. Cases involving women or young males (who have not yet received the Melchizedek priesthood) are dealt with at the ward level by the bishop along with his two counselors, not by the bishop alone, and can be overturned on appeal to the stake.
Why should I? My only intent was to correct (twice now) an error in comparing two hierarchies.
ROTFLMAO!!! Ryan "lecturing" Catholics on social policy!! I particularly liked the comments by Dana Milbank in the WP:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/paul-ryans-faith-based-lesson/2012/04/27/gIQAH76TlT_story.html
"Ryan didn’t turn the other cheek. He showed up at Georgetown on Thursday to deliver a previously scheduled lecture, and lecture he did. He said the faculty members would benefit from a “fact-based conversation” on the issue. “I suppose that there are some Catholics who for a long time thought they had a monopoly . . . on the social teaching of our church,” he said, but no more. “The work I do as a Catholic holding office conforms to the social doctrine as best I can make of it.”
Has Ryan, the good Catholic, forgotten his Catechism? Does he not remember the Magisterium?
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PK.HTM
'The Magisterium of the Church
85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.'
Then Ryan appears to fit the Roman Catholic definition of a schismatic, if not that of a heretic.
Ryan is just another bad joke Wisconsin has played on its people.. Ist it the water they drink or fail to drink up there? I'm from there and never met people like that.
The folks that I grew up with were hard-working and intelligent without being hurtful to others in the name of God.
The irony is that you will often hear conservative Catholics say snidely when liberal Catholics complain about the Church's teachings on birth control or homosexuality, or women in the priesthood, "Well, the Church is NOT a democracy! If you don't like it, leave."
This time, however, the shoe is on the other foot...
Catholic priests have been compelled to enter into vows of poverty and chastity since about 325 C.E. in order to more closely follow the path of enlightenment specified by Jesus Christ. Roman Catholic professions, like monk, nun, priest, bishop, and cardinal receive financial compensation only for living expenses plus occasional "vacation".
Ryan is as far removed from that as it is possible to be.
The vow of poverty was implemented because the Roman Catholic church was using donations to do things like the $5 billion Mormon casino. The Catholic vows of poverty and chastity were implemented to eliminate financial and nepotism abuses.
The Republican party has jeopardized the tax-exempt status of several archdiocese with their political stunts.
Priests that use the congregation to influence government policy have been at risk of disciplinary Vatican action for over 1,000 years.
In theory, Ryan is at risk of disciplinary action under cannon law. It is a sin to scorn the poor.
The letter to Jenky asks him to apologize and his response was that the letter writers didn't know what they were talking about because they took his words out of context and didn't read his whole homily. When you look at the whole homily, they did not take his words out of context.
This is the same circle-the-wagons mentality that the hierarchy has when addressing the sexual abuse of minors behavior of priests as exhibited by numerous catholic officials such as Bernard Law. There will never be an apology, and he will just double down on how his religious freedom is being curtailed. In addition to an apology, he needs to take a multiyear sabbatical devoted to meditation and contemplation of the teachings of Christ.
I simply do not understand how the lunatic ravings of Ayn Rand and her cultish followers is in ANY way compatible with the Bible or ANY Christian teachings, Catholic or otherwise, down through history.
I can't figure out what the Tea Bagging NEO-Con has to do with the Bible either but there they are, swinging it around.
Beating people over the head with the Bible.
Todays Phrase is: Cognitive Dissonance.
You might have noticed that Paul Ryan has been distancing himself from his Ayn Rand roots. The better to play the Catholic "morality" card. Of course, Ryan's problem is he understands Randism better than he understands either the teachings of Christ or the teachings of the Catholic Church on the importance of tending to the needs of the poor and afflicted.
The problem in general is that we can not have a serious debate about morality, compassion, justice, mercy, or peace, without someone wanting to claim a priori victory via authority.
We can't talk about how murder, child molestation and rape are evil in and of themselves, some people just need an officiator for that.
And what good does it do us in the end? We're now at the point of trying to explain this divine person's own teachings to people who have already twisted and distorted them to suit their own purposes instead of just being able to have an adult conversation on the best way to maximize freedom and minimize suffering.
Ayn Rand was an atheist.
Funny that neo-conservatives would choose an atheist as a role model.
Jesus is a Liberal. Least everything I heard about Jesus would indicate He is a Liberal.
Which makes the conscription of Jesus to the NEO-Con cause an irony.
POLITICAL RULE: If you can't will against your opponents platform, you co-opt it!
There is no doubt, just reading what Jesus was supposed to have said in the Bible that he was a progressive liberal. The Neo-Cons couldn't "beat" that story, so they just co-opted it and said it was THEIR story.
Another example: Ryan's budget is going to HELP the poor.
Corporations do it it too! Remember the "Clean Coal" campaign??? Anyone who has ever worked around coal knows THAT isn't true!
You ever look at BP's website? Well they are COMMITTED to the Gulf environment!!
As long as people just listen to the "words" and don't do the research themselves (and unfortunately most people don't), it all sounds real!!!!
Has anyone checked out the website Tea Party Jesus? It's funny and sad at the same time...
"I was taken out of context"
That statement is getting pretty old, no matter who uses it. Kind of becoming the catch-all phrase for damage control when politicians LIE through their teeth.
Whenever I hear it these days I just laugh and say- "Gotcha, liar...LOL".
It also amazes me that the party that seems to be coziest with the Bible is also the party of strategic and well planned LYING. What's up with that ?? Makes me REALLY wonder if these LIARS even believe in God or Jesus. I suppose not, as Biblical teachings place liars down there with other grave sinners.
Oh wait, I forgot... all they have to do is "have faith" and their sins are wiped clean. How freaking convenient is that ??
/rant
"all they have to do is "have faith" and their sins are wiped clean"
Thats the spookiest thing about these people. There is only one power they feel they are answerable to, and that one Power tells them that no matter what sins they do on this Earth they are forgiven.
The Thumpers who know every word of the Bible will lie, cheat and steal then find a passage to justify their lying, cheating and steeling because in someway their lying, cheating and steeling (sic) serves God Jesus. And, Hell, if it doesn't Jesus forgives All (snicker Grin). Jesus is crying but He won't damn me.
The True Christian may look at something they want and figure they could get it by lying, cheating and steeling and be forgiven but it would probably make Jesus Weep so mayhaps they'll figure out another way to go about getting what they want.
If you point out the Thumpers actions there goes up a cry of how you can't judge all Christians by the actions of a few .... then they turn around and judge entire groups by the actions of a few members of the group. It's insane.
.
I've been calling this phenomenon Neo-Calivinism. Only you had to add in that these are highly authoritarian people in mentality. So in other words they not only get to wipe their slate clean, but because they have now wiped it clean they then get to force other people to do whatever they have arbitrarily decided other people should do. Because...ya know, they have a clean slate now.
It's not that simple, really....what is REALLY the spookiest part of it all is that there is no real "faith" involved at all...that Christianity has been so corrupted by a group of neocons nearly 60 years ago who decided that what god wanted was for "strong, militaristic-style leadership" in government, using christianity as the justification for bullies to take the power they "had a right to". Jeff Sharlett's book, "The Family" is one of the most shocking, thought-provoking and frightening accounts of the development of this nut-job takeover of religion and politics, and since reading it, my perspective on these folks is clearer than ever, and as such, waaaay scarier! When you believe you rule by "divine right", you can be as fearless and callous and bigoted as you want to be, and there is no argument that can sway that belief. Not even pointing out that everything they do runs completely counter to the teachings of their supposed "savior"....feed the poor, love thy neighbor, be humble, etc....very, very sick people.....
Faith could be sufficient and God does not need to have government assistance?
They are in a perpetual state of sin/forgiveness. But others are not allowed to be forgiven for theirs?
I have no faults, doh…. now I do, doh.… I am forgiven, but look at them, doh…
These people of faith are being used, I'd say.
Neo-cons have no problem stealing from the poor.
Bain takes over companies, then pension funds are used as collateral to obtain impractically large loans. These loan proceeds are siphoned off as consulting fees and profit instead of the legitimate purpose of factory retrofit or other company improvements.
This leaves retirees destitute and dependent on the taxpayer.
These retirement funds are guaranteed by the federal government through the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC).
The lead negotiator for the PBGC is Ms. Schneider, a former employee of Mitt Romney at Bain & Co., which is a clear conflict of interest that corrupts public trust in the federal bankruptcy process.
Romney and Ryan have been advocating social security and medicare cuts to reduce their own taxes after forcing people to rely solely on social security and medicare after confiscating their retirement funds for personal gain.
Bishop Jenky
I'm confused - Hitler repeatedly professed to be a Christian - and German Christian's seem to accept his claim. When you compare President Obama to Hitler - does than mean that the Republican party has finally admitted that Obama is a Christian or does it mean that Hitler was really a closet Muslim from Kenya? Please help me out.
Seriously Bishop - if Obama actually was the equivalent to Hitler - you would be residing in a Chock Full 'o Nuts can about now.
Adam_Selene
Hitler never professed to be a Christian. Hitler rejected the the idea that policy should be derived from religious considerations, especially where Jews and other "racial" matters were concerned, and believed that Christianity had been a disaster for Germany.
I can't imagine where you got the idea that Hitler "repeatedly professed" Christianity, as I am aware of nothing in Mein Kampf, in his speeches, or in notes taken of his private conversation that backs up that claim.
This well-researched Wikipedia article might help: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Adolf_Hitler
I've always considered Hitler's somewhat generic references to God and 'providence' as basically reflecting verbal conventions and to cloak his radicalism with a veneer of respectability. Hitler never was able to really connect with people, and his public pronouncements relating to Christianity were never really personal (any more than the ostensibly autobiographical portions of Mein Kampf were personal). I think that Hitler's only true belief was himself, his sense of destiny, and his self-interested pursuit for power. Even the Nazi party platform, which publicly was made out to be something of paramount importance, was never really taken seriously by Hitler and certainly wasn't used to guide policy once the Nazis gained power. It's true that Hitler's character displays many contradictory aspects, although I suspect that a lot of that is due to the projections of other people. Hitler himself seems to me to be an essentially empty man with no faith, no convictions, and certainly no moral center.
@MeddlingMonk,
People that don't know their history are condemned to repeat the mistakes.
Adolph Hitler was the most infamous member of the Roman Catholic church.
Hitler got the idea to make hebrew citizens wear identification from Roman Catholic cannon law.
You can find plenty of Hitler Christian quotes documented on many college and university web sites (please feel free to click here, here, or here):
Newsvine appears to have a filter that mangles links.
http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~lovering/Quotes/quote@!$%#ler.html
http://wais.stanford.edu/Germany/germany_hitler03102004.htm
http://itech.fgcu.edu/&/issues/vol2/issue1/german.htm
http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/jan1994/v50-4-bookreview6.htm
The "qiuote@!$%#ler.html" mangled by Newsvine is "q u o t e s H i t l e r . h t m l"
Yeah, I know that Hitler was formally Catholic, but he never professes any personal faith in his public statements about Christianity, churches, and religion. And while antisemitism has religious roots, Hitler was at pains in Mein Kampf to reject religion in favor of racism as the basis for antisemitism. The church favored conversion, and Hitler favored extermination. Hitler's attitude toward the Catholic church and Christianity were political and institutional, nothing more.
I have an MA in history. Don't assume that because you are in disagreement with me that I must be an ignorant jackass.
@MeddlingMonk,
It turns out we have the same level of education.
Just because you don't agree with me does not make me wrong. If it is a fact that you have not read, then it is still a fact.
Hope this finds you well.
You are still implying that I'm an ignoramus because there is a disagreement. If that is your attitude (and it plainly is) then there is no point in continuing to interact.
Ditto.
Have a nice day.
Profess: To make a pretense of; pretend -which he did in many speeches - certainly implying that he was a supporter of Christianity. (Though he had a special Hitler version of Christianity waiting in the wings.)
Was Hitler actually true believer suffering from insanity - I would assume that only the "insanity" portion of the statement applies.
Sheesh! Apparently I missed my calling as a troll.
As for Hitler's link with Christianity - why not read Martin Luther's The Jews and Their Lies. I would say Hitler did a fair job of implementation.
Oh - Italian Fascism did began on the left.
Over simplification? I think not...but I would be happy to be proved wrong. Most of the problem these people have with the President, no matter how they try to redecorate it, is the knowledge that our President cannot wake up tomorrow morning and be a white guy.
Bingo! Exactly!!!
Question: If Obama were white, would there be such a fuss over his birth certificate?
Of course not. A slave needing to travel required a pass written by his owner. In the Jim Crow era, a black man was required to carry ID papers or face arrest. It's a long-standing idea in America: that it is a requirement that a black man must prove that he has any business being wherever he happens to be.
from TO,
Absolutely Not!!!
@from TO,
Bingo.
Unbelievable, anything to win. This really makes me ill.
These religious wingnuts are just following the only path available to them. Their outdated, ridiculous conception of the universe and nature is in direct conflict with the facts of the matter, and they're desperately and violently lashing around to keep their base of support among people who can see through their bull. That's why they hate education and don't support science. Or history. Or facts.
Look at how the big Culture War issues evolved: First, evolution wasn't true because the Bible said that things are created. Then they decided no; evolution isn't true because living things are intelligently designed! Irreducibly complex! Specifically complex! All of which, of course, aren't true and have been proven untrue by very nearly literal mountains of evidence.
Now, consider homosexuality. First, it was wrong because the Bible said so. Then it was wrong because being gay is a choice! Then it was wrong because gay people can change!
The fact is that the religious have allowed their core, fundamental beliefs to be corrupted and taken over by politics, and they fully deserve the consequence of having a little pubic louse like Paul Ryan lecture to them, because it's one disingenuous little worm talking to a bunch of other disingenuous people.
I have no problem with religious people nor do I have a problem with spirituality. I do have a problem with the disgusting cancer on our society and democracy that these right-wing fascist religions have become. It's time for intelligent people to start proselytizing for deep thought and ethics, not bronze age mythology.
"Catholic intellectual" is an oxymoron.
With the possible exception of Dr. Kenneth R. Miller.
It turns out the religious nut-jobs are right: a good University education, including critical thinking skills, will undermine your faith!
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=losing-your-religion-analytic-thinking-can-undermine-belief
So, is a University education still such a good deal?
Here's one I like:
Trinity Broadcasting Network denied tax break on luxury ‘parsonages’
I must say--these people really scare me. Regardless of one's affiliation, most religions follow some version of the Golden Rule. So, I wonder how Ryan would feel about all this if he grew up economically poor, underfed, without the same "toys" the other kids had and feeling like the world was against him instead of behind him with the way already paved. Read the history of Rome. It was not the plebeians who ruined their society--it was the patricians trying to raise the empire on the backs of the poor. Ryan is simply unable to connect with the voters because he just doesn't get it and apparently is uninterested in learning. He serves himself in Washington. And as far as Obama's birth certificate--let the dead rest. At least try to show a little imagination and come up with something new--or can it be that they can't find anything?
Do Churches really want to lose their tax exempt status by becoming Political Entities?
.
Annie,
I hope you are not right, but for the most part you probably are!
However, there are still some of us out there who have real problems with Obama for other reasons:
1. The Supreme Court decision on Citizen's United was in January 2010. Obama had until the end of that year to try and pass legislation to negate its effects. He didn't even try! Citizens United is the biggest threat to our republic that our country has seen since the Civil War and the President should have called in every marker, begged if necessary for every vote, and did whatever was possible to stop its effects. President Obama may lose this election because he didn't do anything about Citizen's United. What is worse is that all REAL citizens of this country are the biggest losers!
2. Someone should have told President Obama that "It's the economy, stupid!" Instead Obama chose Geitner, a government hack who caves to Wall Street on every issue because he doesn't know any better, to be his Secretary of the Treasury. We really NEEDED someone who REALLY understood Wall Street and was able to reign it in. What has he done to ensure that BofA or Citibank or some other corporation can't drag the economy down again? Not much!! Dodd-Frank is a WEAK solution to the problems Wall Street has caused for this country. If he had handled the economy first, we might never have had the idiots elected in the House and Senate that we do today!
3. President Obama even sold out on health care. We all expected a public option because that is the ONLY way to drive down health care costs. Instead he sold out our health care to insurance companies who respond to their shareholders, not the people needing medical care!
4. Where are the jobs? That first stimulus was way too small - didn't he realize that? Others did! We have SO MANY infrastructure problems that need to be fixed.
5. He made LOUSY choices for advisers. Weren't they aware of what was going on in Congress and that there was NO WAY for any bipartisanship? Why did he loose face so many times, over and over, trying to work with them?
All that being said, I am still going to vote for President Obama this year. I don't care WHAT Romney says. I am not going to vote for a man who thinks that he can have the Presidency just because he has enough money to buy it!!!
All's I can say to your list is that it's not ALL Obama...you need to look at the Democratic Congress and then you need to look at the 'new' filibuster 'rule'. The old line Democrats ALSO did not 'trust' the President and spent a year screwing around. They didn't bring bills up to vote on because they just weren't quite 'sure'. And Obama let them do it. I don't mean that in a bad way but I think Obama is of the school to 'give them just enough rope' school...no matter WHAT party you're in. I don't think he had lousey advisors but I DO think that he didn't have ENOUGH advisors that could work with the Congress. He generally picked governors and Wall Streeters and Generals. Maybe being IN the Senate you don't tend to pick from THERE because you've seen them in action! Glad you are still voting for Obama regardless of your reservations because the only policy we've seen from the Republicans is to finish up what Bush was unable to...and fill Supreme Court decisions which BROUGHT us Citizen's United. BTW the President couldn't do anything about that...we need a court case for the Supremes to rule on...
Actually there was something very simple he could have done. He could have sponsored and worked his "magic" to get legislation passed that stated that a Corporation as a person, could only donate as much as each individual person can donate under the FEC rules, and that the donation had to be to a candidate, not a PAC.
Maybe not all the problems were caused by President Obama directly, but because of his inexperience, he DID choose the wrong people and they failed him.
President Obama spent his first two years, when he had the most control that he ever had, basically "sitting" in his office instead of being on the "bully pulpit". If he'd have spent one day every week when he was the most popular in some Republican districts, he'd have gotten considerably more done.
I am not sure what Congress can do about Citizens United. Note--"sure".
But heard this idea a few weeks ago. Put a 90% tax on political contributions.
That way most of their money goes to reducing the debt rather than confusing the issues of elections.
It's simple. Congress can pass a bill declaring that corporations are not persons.
It is interesting when these people like Rick Perlstein, Bishop Daniel R. Jenky, Sandy Rios, and Tony Perkins get going on talking about religion and other people while being so pro-Republican. Especially, when the GOP/Republicans have proven themselves to be wrong on so many issues. But in all this stuff going on there is something else to consider besides just listening to these people. The real importance behind these church’s and what does Supercede any of these people, even to the point of the Pope, is God, Jesus, the Virgin Mary and the light. And when any of these speak that is the final word and does in fact supercede any living person on this planet, especially when any messages have been given. And that will be left open to have there been any occurrences that have happened? Actually, I am curious how these people would dare to answer that question and what the comment was from one of these sources.
I personally have absolutely no interest in what a bunch of men in clown
suits say but I think it's hilarious that their interpretation of the Bible is
so different than the GOP's is right now that they felt it necessary to issue a
public statement condemning their actions. Especially after the GOP has been
courting the Catholic vote with that birth control issue.
I'm glad some authorities (given by RW) are calling these Ayn Rand followers/worshippers out on this! Because when a RW'er takes a pulse and determines it is a liberal that says anything about Christianity, they are rejected. But truthfully, teachings of Jesus are liberal, progressive even.
At odds is any alliance between Ayn Rand followers and any of those professing to be Judeo Christian. Ayn Rand was a selfish, mean spirited, unapologetic atheist, so it is hard to swallow the anti Christian policies cranked out by these so called followers of Christ.
How many Hail Mary's have they given Ryan and will he be denied communion?
I'm not so sure it is surprising. People who gravitate to the right are people who have moderately to highly authoritarian personalities. The more strongly authoritarian, the further to the right they go. There is a subset of authoritarians (most of whom are born followers) who are authoritarian leaders. They seek power for themselves above all else. They don't really have a reason for wanting power, they just want what they want.
To make that seem reasonable (or at least acceptable) to others, the authoritarian leader cloaks himself (it usually is a male) in whatever it is in a particular culture that serves to give legitimacy. Those may be things that don't logically go together.
In American culture, two things to which people traditionally have accorded great respect are religion generally (and Christianity in particularly) and individualism/self-reliance. In China, for contrast, an embrace of atheism and at least theoretical collectivism is part of a socially-legitimate quest for personal power. Authoritarians in the US generally are very likely to profess Christianity, in a conservative or fundamentalist form usually, and to be libertarian. The fact that the most influential libertarian of recent history is the atheist Ayn Rand is not really a problem because highly-authoritarian personalities don't really bother examining their ideas too closely and because beliefs/convictions are only tools.
Which is why Ryan has suddenly backed away from Ayn Rand despite many years of praising her to the skies. People have begun to twig onto the tremendous contradiction of a professed Catholic embracing Ayn Rand, and so being a Randian is no longer the positive (or at least the non-issue) that it was before. Since Ryan's only real belief is that he should have as much power as he can get, he can dump Rand without a twinge because she was only a means to that end.
Agree.
Feel free to connect the dots on these gems.
Fear of Scary Things is Learned - Rutgers NJ
Conservatives have Larger Fear Center
Study Links Low IQ to Conservatism
Fear of something interferes with being able to fully understand it because the mind is hard wired to avoid the thing you fear.
This creates a learning disability called the stereotype threat.
Stereotype Threat
Stereotype thinking can passed from caregiver to child during early childhood if parents are unaware.
Early childhood
morons elect morons. go figure. long live prez. MITT. MORONS!