First up from the God Machine this week is arguably the most closely watched commencement address from a presidential candidate since George W. Bush stopped by Bob Jones University 12 years ago. Today, of course, is the day Mitt Romney speaks at Liberty University, a right-wing school founded by the late radical televangelist Jerry Falwell.
The timing could be better for the Republican. When the campaign announced that Romney would speak at the Virginia college, it didn't know the remarks would come amidst a larger discussion of marriage rights, the anti-gay measures in the former governor's platform, and a decades-old incident in which Romney allegedly assaulted a high-school student believed to be gay.
Delivering a commencement address at Falwell's school is itself a strange decision -- at this phase of the campaign, shouldn't Romney stop pandering to extremists and start Etch A Sketching towards the American mainstream? -- but for the speech to come now makes it all the more significant.
There's no shortage of compelling angles to this story. Note, for example, "The Liberty Way" -- the university's all-encompassing code of conduct -- which dictates much of students' lives, even off campus. Dancing and R-rated movies are prohibited, for example, and the punishment for student abortions is the same as dabbling in witchcraft. (Perhaps "Liberty" was not the best choice of names for the school.)
Falwell U. also, incidentally, offers a course that identifies Mormons as belonging to a "cult" that must be defeated.
Given all of this, will Romney use his speech today to put some distance between himself and the religious right's radicalism or will he pander to the evangelical audience with culture-war red meat? Chances are, we'll see neither -- advance excerpts suggest the GOP presidential hopeful will stick to more generic themes, such as the value of family, and hope his mere presence is enough to solidify the support Romney will need from the right in November.
But for the larger mainstream, the commencement address suggests Romney's post-primary shift away from his party's more extreme elements still isn't happening. What's more, despite all the talk about his focus on the economy, the Republican's anti-gay agenda is reinforced, not just with his push for a constitutional amendment, but with his decision to visit a school that considers itself a "hard liner institution against the homosexual menace."
Also from the God Machine this week:
* The U.S. Conference on Catholic Bishops went into more detail this week when criticizing Republican budget cuts the Roman Catholic leaders believe are needlessly punitive towards the poor (thanks to C.S. for the tip).
* When President Obama endorsed marriage equality this week, he announced a position that his church, the United Church of Christ, has supported for quite a while.
* The Vatican crackdown on the Leadership Conference of Women Religious, an umbrella organization representing 57,000 American nuns, was reportedly "spurred on by American Catholic officials worried the nuns aren't vocal enough on conservative social issues."
* The religious right's pseudo historian, David Barton, has a new book. It's filled with claims that don't stand up well to scrutiny.
* And in Arizona, a private religious school was set to play in a baseball state championship, but forfeited because their rival's team was co-ed (thanks to R.P. for the tip).
Leave a Comment:
I'm not going to watch this one, but I imagine Mitt's first words were, "You know, this place reminds me a lot of BYU."
Those two have a real rivalry going for Playboy's "Worst Campuses for a Party" award.
Cabbie,
"the sinners are all the same height"?
Here - download and read this instead.
The Changing of the Guard: Biblical Principles for Political Action by George Grant, published in 1987 by Dominion Press
If you can make it to the really scary stuff on page 50 and 51 I will be truly impressed.
By the way - been thinking about your suggestion of a couple of weeks ago - I would like to come in out of the cold. I'll fill out the "application" sometime this week end. It's like that line in a song from Chicago "simply cannot do it - alone". Can't quite explain it but I'm "smelling" a chill in the air and feeling a "pricking of my thumbs".
Adam_Selene
If evangelical Christians were the primary religion in oil producing countries in the Middle East, I imagine they would have been targeted and exploited by big oil as were the Arabic population. It would have played out much the same with some wingnut organization deciding America was the great Satan and blowing people up. Oil not religion is the driving force for US involvement in the Middle East. Whoever lives on top of oil will be used and abused. Hating the indigents is cover for we want what you got.
Hey, if they can convince enough people it's the wrong religion, there will be more soldiers to fight for the real prize.
However plenty of people do want to war over religion. I think Islam got mad when the West went to get the oil and bring their other religions. But it's not limited to the West, the Taliban blew up the Buddhas, so they do have fundamentalists that wish to preserve Islam as the official religion, just like some fundamentalists try here.
Is it me, or does Mitt look like he aged 10 years thru this cycle?
If Jesus comes back I hope it is a Saturday in spring. If it is the right weekend the religious right will all be there because it is their turn to mow the Koch brothers lawn.
Regarding the Hate Islam course in an earlier post: "This is Abu Ghraib by power point and lectern," said Mikey Weinstein, president of the nonprofit Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), referring to the scandal that erupted in 2004 after the surfacing of torrid pictures of U.S. troops abusing prisoners in Iraq. "It’s even worse than Abu Ghraib. What they are talking about is essentially genocide," of Muslims." An example of the textbook in this course is at:
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/05/total-war-islam/
The story of Mitt Romney’s bullying of a teenage classmate back in 1965, and his present non-apology apology, still does not focus on the real issue relevant to his potential presidency. “Would ‘President Romney’ take orders from Salt Lake City?” The Mormon church has had a policy of physical violence toward LGBT people for at least six decades. This is still their policy. It is the culture in which Romney grew up—anti-gay, anti-black, anti-women. In the Mormon temple, Romney has taken secret and solemn oaths and covenants to obey his church leaders and the doctrines they teach above all else. He should be asked if he not only repudiates his own bullying actions in 1965, but also if he repudiates his church’s pro-violence policies now. Which will he choose as president—the law or the church? The media must focus on what is done in Mormon temples.
State Sen. Mark Grisanti R. NY said "I swore with my hand on the Bible to uphold the Constitution. I did not swear with my hand on the Constitution to uphold the Bible." Mitt could easily say this but since he lies so easily it would probably be meaningless. I am unaware if the senator is in trouble with the far right for his statement.
hate crime
Rick Santorum says President Obama is out of touch with the American people, but good ole Rickie is out of touch with God that he claims to be so aware of plus being out of touch with the American people. These Republicans always seem to try any excuse they can to serve their rich masters. Rick Santorum why don’t you try living on the average persons wages a year instead of that million dollars plus a year that you get paid from rich people to do your nonsense talk, literal corruption and deceptions. Rick you should know according to Jesus you cannot serve 2 masters.
Sam Mullet, an Amish sect leader remains in prison on federal hate crime charges with 15 of his followers "on charges of orchestrating a series of beard-cutting attacks in Ohio last year." Mitt Romney has yet to comment whether he supports Mr. Mullet's right to play pranks on others. The report on Mr. Mullet is from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette from 4-25-12.
Romney Bullying Incident. I was surprised that Rachel did not address Romney's response to the accusation. Normally, a politician would do either of two things. One, just outright denial and with the money that he has and the wealthy supporters, do everything they can to discredit the accusors. Or, admit it and apologize with a statement that he regrets what he did as a young man and supports efforts to stop bullying. He actually may have gained some positive response to this tact and his supporters could state that he has learned from the mistakes of his youth.
However, he made a very revealing response that tells us a lot about who he really is. His response was that he did not remember doing the bullying and that if he did it he was sorry. The question is how do you not remember such a highly emotionally charged incident of holding a person on the ground a cutting their hair against their will. His response says that he probably bullied others regularily and that their pain & suffering meant nothing to him. They meant nothing to him as human beings. This is the real Mitt Romney.
"Delivering a commencement address at Falwell's school is itself a strange decision -- at this phase of the campaign"
He's also a strange man and a strange candidate to have as a GOP nominee at this phase as a civilization.
For those not aware, it is customary for those ofthe LDS faith to cross their arms in front of their bodies when in prayer. If Mitt Romney were being true to his faith this is what he would have done at the graduation yesterday. He did not. Why would a man who is so proud of his religious background and heritage not honor it by praying in the proper fashion? True hypocrite!
The religious right is stepping on its own crank by fighting abortion. I read somewhere recently that many on the right are having larger families than on the left. We have a generation or two before they are a majority. We can vote them so far out of office that it won't matter or face being a persecuted minority.
I keep getting amazed from some of these Religious Pharisees, when it comes to God and Jesus. They talk like they know it all and in reality know so little, especially when it comes to the mysteries of God and Jesus and how God and Jesus interacts in the world. It is like you set up a meal for a great feast and than they say what did you do or buy. Why do so many of these Religious Pharisees keep God’s children so blind?
Educated followers is an oxymoron for these leaders. They would love their flock to burn every book but a highly edited Bible.
I am normal straight American and here is what I think.
I am a demorcrat but I am not as liberal as you think.. We all know that if gays want to get married, then why not . They love each other right? It does not hurt anyone. However, it is nby nature impossible for gays to ever consumate their marriage. So when two men or two women marry, is it truly, ever a real marriage at all because it impossible for two gays to consumate? As we all know, in the catholic church, even if heterosexuals get married and cant consumate for whatever reason, the marriage can be anulled. For those of you who do not know, consumation is the union of the reproductive organs of male and female. All animals do this in nature in order to mate and continue their species. So when Kirk Cameron (the actor of growing pains ) stated being gay is unnatural. He was perfectly correct because it is unnatural to use the digestive system as a sexual pleasure zone. The digestive system was designed by nature to take in nourishment
and to excrete waste products. It was not designed to do what gay men and women have decided to use it for. Only the reproductive organs of a male and femal were designed to fit todgether in a perfect union by nautre. This is true for every animal species. By nature, this union is a natural impossibility for two gay men and for two gay woman. Only men and women can come together in a perfect union sexually designed by nature and continue our beautiful species. So if gays want to get married, so be it. They will never consumate their marriage or ever have what a man and a woman can have that was designed by nature. So yes it is very unnatural to be gay.
Thank God!
That was true in 1930. In 2012 sex is no longer only about popping out babies and marriage is no longer only about that either.
Richie, nature made some people gay. So it can't be unnatural.
From what you've described, you know you're saying that all kissing, including between a man and a woman, is unnatural?
You're making a moral argument against homosexuality and disguising it as "nature" to try and avoid taking responsibility for your personal opinion. You're saying you're okay with gays, it's nature that's against it. But it's quite the opposite. Nature is okay with homosexuality, it's you that has a problem with it.
Finally, this civil rights movement is about civil marriage, not religious marriage.
Buttsex.
Wtf does this even mean?! Are you meaning to discuss anal sex? The anus naturally has pleasure zones built into it and in the particular case of men if those areas of the anus are stimulated enough this will result in orgasm. That's something done biologically. Or are you talking about oral sex? When oral sex is performed on women there isn't any ingesting that goes on other than perhaps the ingestion of vaginal fluid, but this is not necessary to perform the act of oral sex. When performing oral sex on women there is neither ingestion nor excretion as part of the act (well technically the female orgasm would be excretion, but this would be natural excretion in response to having an orgasm). When we're talking about oral sex being performed on men: the penis is designed- again talking about biologically here- to be stimulated from stroking up and down. Whether that stroking comes from a hand, a tongue and mouth, a vagina, or otherwise does not take away from the naturalness of this. FTR straight people engage in anal sex and oral sex. You are postulating this as though gays only engage in oral or anal sex and that this is something exclusive to gays. Newsflash: it is not- not even by a long shot. Just so that you know not all gay men have anal sex; anal sex is NOT necessary for gay men to have sexual intercourse. Sighs.
What is even more confusing here is that you make this association between things going into the body through the digestive system w/o arguing or explaining their connection. You automatically state that gays and lesbians are engaging in acts w/o verifying or arguing how you know this. You state it as if it's a fact of life (which it is not) and then argue a point that's premise has NOT yet been proven. Sighs again.
Sex is unnecessary to reproduce for the human species. It has been unnecessary for the human species for decades now. Beyond this who defines what is or isn't natural and how can you define whether it is or isn't moral? You are wearing clothes right now, living in an apartment or house that has air conditioning and or heating. W/o these things you would die and yet they are unnatural if your statement of "natural" means occurring in the physical world w/o outside intervention. You as a human cannot live w/o unnatural elements in your life. Even back in the days when man was nomadic we still relied on unnatural means of existence. We used spears to hunt, cut our food w/ rocks, and cooked our meals over fire. All of this would be unnatural. Yet your existence ceases w/o this. It seems to me that a better argument would be that humanity creates it's own natural. In which case this would mean that homosexuality- whether you believe it to be a choice or something you are biologically wired w/ upon birth- would therefore be natural. But, of course, if we argue this then we can no longer be against teh gay.
What is more I just want to point out that you cannot simultaneously argue about nature while then interjecting at the end of your comment something about god. If a god or gods act upon the world then this would necessitate that the world no longer exists naturally. So either a. you did not mean to thank god at the end here because god would be an unnatural element to reality (which you are insinuating is automatically morally bad) or b. you meant to thank god for unnaturally involving himself/herself/itself/themselves w/ the world thereby ensuring things went the way he/she/it/they wanted as opposed to how the world might exist w/o that intervention (hint, hint: this is the argument behind Creationism). Sighs again.
He was referring to both the mouth and the anus. Sure, we can just use our hands, but again this is a red herring. He thinks gay sex is icky regardless of whether it's natural or not.
Homophobes don't take responsibility for their opinions. They pretend their views come from God or Nature or something outside themselves.
Cameron is a loon; if you're using him in your argument, you've already shot yourself in the foot. Also, Richie, your argument implies that someone who is infertile, has had their equipment decommisioned (such as our troops who have had genitals mangled in service to the country), or who is too old to reproduce cannot be truly married. You are full of crap, and need to learn what it means to be a Democrat. Equality is for all. If you feel like you have said, you'll feel happier with the GOP.
You are correct GR
As always you find a way of saying in a short paragraph what takes me full pages to write >.<
Oh, but I like your voluminous posts! It bespeaks actual consideration and thought on a subject. Tell you what: I'll be the quick-blurb guy, and you can be the long-and-well-thought-out-post guy. ;)
What if that war brings back Mohammed? What next?
Liberal pukes, you are so willing to attack Mitt romney but you are not willing to use the same standards for Osama Obama and his lackeys. He is no doubt that he is the Food Stamp King but he has 'evolved".But if Mitt changes his stand on on an issue then he flip flops, but if Obama changes then he "evolves". Go pound some sand libs you day is over. The GOP is going to take control of the Senate in 2012, then it really wont matter if Osama Obama wins or not becuase the GOP will shut all of his left wing loonie program down. Just wait until the US SC overturns Obama care and what will you liberal pukes do then?
Do you feel better now? Did you get it ALL off your chest? Why don't you post this November 7th? Don't worry, if you forget, I will dig up this post and put it up for you!!
The expansion of food stamps is because Bush wrecked the economy. The GOP is losing next November, because they can't keep their hands off American freedoms. And if the SC rules against the mandate, well, it'll come back as a tax, easy peasy! Enjoy! By the way, why do you hate young people, the elderly, and the middle class by wanting their health care costs to skyrocket or wanting them to be completely uncovered? Is it because you're a hateful little troll? I'll bet so.
We all know that if gays want to get married, then why should they. All gays are heterophobic, and hate the oppostie sex as we all know. However,the marriage between a man and a woman is a union and consumation can occur. This is a natural thing that occurs for our basic existence. it is by nature, impossible for gays to ever consumate their marriage. So when two men or two women marry, is it truly, ever a real marriage at all? NO. Because it impossible for two gays to consumate? As we all know, in the catholic church, even if heterosexuals get married and cant consumate for whatever reason, the marriage can be anulled. For those of you who do not know, consumation is the union of the reproductive organs of male and female. All animals do this in nature in order to mate and continue their species. So when Kirk Cameron (the actor of growing pains ) stated being gay is unnatural. He was perfectly correct because it is unnatural to use the digestive system as a sexual pleasure zone. The digestive system was designed by nature to take in nourishment
and to excrete waste products. It was not designed to do what gay men and women have decided to use it for. Only the reproductive organs of a male and femal were designed to fit todgether in a perfect union by nautre. This is true for every animal species. By nature, this union is a natural impossibility for two gay men and for two gay woman. Only men and women can come together in a perfect union sexually designed by nature and continue our beautiful species. So if gays want to get married, so be it. They will never consumate their marriage or ever have what a man and a woman can have that was designed by nature. So yes it is very unnatural to be gay.
Thank God!
Buttsex.
As who knows? The APA has roundly debunked this theory. FTR I am a lesbian and I am far from heterophobic. I don't hate men I just don't want to have sex w/ men. If you cannot understand the difference then that says something about you.
Reproduction is NOT a requirement for marriage nor is that how marriage is defined. Remember people who are infertile and elderly get married all the time. There are also people who get married who choose not to have children. These marriages are not automatically annulled on that basis of their not producing children. In order for your statement to be true- that a marriage cannot be real unless children are produced- this would mean that non-child rearing marriages would have to be ceased by the state. This would also mean that all couples- even those that have finished raising their children into adulthood- would be forcibly divorced by the state unless they produced more children. Have you even thought through what it is that you're saying here?
The operative word here is can be annulled. The marriage is not automatically forfeit if infertility is found. Why? Because marriage is not solely based on reproduction. This means that the couple would have to choose to end their marriage, but that their marriage is not naturally (meaning via the law) annulled. You do realize that this argument contradicts the point you are attempting to make, yes?
Humans are the only species that do not have to have sexual intercourse to reproduce. What is your point? Humans also are the only species that have to wear clothes in order to survive and we're the only species that grow our own food. You cannot hold humanity on the same standard w/ animals in one area, but then disregard this for another area when using terminology as vague as "nature."
Everyone knows that all gays are heterophobic. By definition that what a gay person is, someone who hates the opposited sex--a HETEROPHOBE. There is nothing natural about using your digestion system for sexual satisfaction. Being gay is totally unnatural. Bottom line folks. no questions about it. However, if yall want to get married go for it. You will never have what a man and woman have together as a union. NEVER!
Richard,
We got you the first time. Sorry homosexual people are NOT heterophobes. I work with gay people and we get along just fine. I am a person, they are persons and none of us hate each other.
The rest of your posts is just NONSENSE that you yourself could see if you'd just take off the homophobic screens you have over your eyes!!!!
Buttsex.
What dictionary are you reading dude o.O
Homosexual = a person who is attracted to and has sex w/ persons of the same gender
Heterosexual = a person who is attracted to and has sex w/ persons of the opposite gender
You do realize that by stating that the definition of homosexuality is "a person who hates someone of the opposite sex" that this would mean that a heterosexual is "a person who hates someone of the same sex." So you have zero friends who are of the same gender? Zero friends who are male (assuming you are a male) or female (assuming you are a female)? So you automatically are hostile and aggressive towards people of the same gender as you? So you automatically are uncomfortable around people of the same gender as you? Even if they are related to you? Doesn't this say more about you than it does gays?
I dream of Jesus with the light brown hair! (/snark)
Politicians call every election the critical one for the future of the nation. Well this time they may be right. While Democrats have been focused on winning the presidency the religious conservatives have been winning state legislatures. They have rigged who can vote, and the various electoral districts all with just one goal in mind...to capture enough states to start passing constitutional amendments, against a woman's right to choose, against gay marriage and other LGBT rights and eventually on who can be a citizen of this country.
We are very lucky because the good fortune of having a Santorum or a Gingrich who pandered to the social conservatives demonstrated just how strong the God Police are on the state level. This election has to hold the conservatives back from reaching their goal of enough states to pass a constitutional amendment (don't count on stopping them in the House or the Senate, that is too much responsibility to put in too few hands) so Democrats must win back some of those states currently in conservative Republican hands and we must lay the groundwork for winning even more states back in 2014. Otherwise kiss your rights good bye. You see what they are trying to pass in states like Wisconsin, Michigan, Alabama and North Carolina.
David Barton is worth your time. Check out his views on Wallbuilders. He is frequently quoted by the Christian Nationalist - the yin side of Dominionism. You see - if the United States is a Christian nation that the founding fathers assumed would be governed by Christians - for Christians - then only Christians have "rights". Religious tests for public office are then appropriate. (Several state still have them in their constitutions.)
Scary things
The three most scary things for humanity has been and always will be, being mortal, being wrong about the weather, and being sexually rejected. Add in, dealing with invisible bugs, and most all religions and customs can be explained.