Dobson and Obama: Biblical Christianity

I have to say, I am amused by James Dobson. But not so much that I can just ignore him and his power in this great country. He is, by any terms, a silly person. He claims that he cannot be compared to the Rev. Al Sharpton, because he is not a reverend. He claims he is not a theologian. Yet despite being neither of these things, he can claim:

"Evangelicals are people who take Bible interpretation very seriously, and the sort of speech he gave shows that he is worlds away in the views of evangelicals," he said

And that makes him silly.

Notice how he is an evangelical, but not a reverend or theologian.. That makes it all ok to say ministerial and theological things with authority and then claim not to have that authority.

But the real core; the real meat of the issue is not what Obama said, or what Dobson claims. It is that there is this perception among the Christian Right that only their views on Christianity matter, and those of all the other millions of Christians out there are ignorant or unimportant. And most importantly, this great nation should only be controlled by those Christian views approved by the Christian right. Thus making this country a theocracy, even though it isn't because other Christians and non-Christians can have their views, only that they are not important or useful in governing.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Dobson.

Democrats and Religion -- Obama Edition

Before I begin, I want to apologize for drifting off on tangents in this post. But I think it will all tie together nicely in the end. That good ol' shuck and jive meister, Charles Krauthammer, has a column up concerning Barak Obama. (For the record, I think it is about time we had a president with a curiously foreign-sounding name...) Let see what Chuckles has to say:

Wright's assertion from the pulpit that the U.S. government invented HIV "as a means of genocide against people of color"? Wright's claim that America was morally responsible for Sept. 11 -- "chickens coming home to roost" -- because of, among other crimes, Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Now first, we have this HIV myth. It has about all the merit of the rightwing myths of the banning of DDT or the fluoridation of our drinking water supply. In other words it is complete bunk so that can be written off by anyone with half a functioning brain (alas our poor Mr. Krauthammer does not measure up to this level of functionality.) But notice the second statement, that We, as Americans, deserved 9/11 becuase of our moral failings. Considering that Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell said exactly the same thing, I don't see how this guy can be singled out for this "crime" of anti-Americanism. If Wright is guilty then so is the entire Religious right -- There is not one single conservative/fundamentalist preacher in existence that hasn't blamed America for its lax moral attitudes towards gays, abortion, and sex in general. But we will see this is the very thing our good buddy Krauthead focuses on..

Obama condemns such statements as wrong and divisive, then frames the next question: "There will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church?"
But that is not the question. The question is why didn't he leave that church? Why didn't he leave -- why doesn't he leave even today -- a pastor who thundered not once but three times from the pulpit (on a DVD the church proudly sells) "God damn America"? Obama's 5,000-word speech, fawned over as a great meditation on race, is little more than an elegantly crafted, brilliantly sophistic justification of that scandalous dereliction.

God Damn America is the point that really gets Chuckles' panties in a bunch. But what is the difference between saying that God damned America using 9/11 as the tool, which is what the Religious Right did, and saying "God Damn America" which is what Wright did? But the sinkhole of illogic does not stop there. For the Religious Right never stops once it goes too far. That bottomless pit of a hole it digs can certainly be dug deeper. They go on to say the same thing about Katrina and New Orleans -- God punished Americans because of moral failings. They protest funerals of American soldiers because these soldiers are defending America, and America deserves any punishment it gets because of its moral failings; so says Pastor Fred Phelps.


The "blame America first" crowd is certainly the entire collective Religious Right. Yet who gets spanked for taking their religion too seriously? Barak Obama. Not McCain, not Bush, not any Republican leaders in Congress, and not a single Republican politician across our great nation. No, it is Obama.


I can only find one distinguishing factor, that pesky 'D' after Barak's name. Apparently only Republicans can subscribe to fire-and-brimstone Christianity. No Democrats allowed.


Unfortunately, I am just a wee bit sympathetic to that sentiment. I am a believer in seperation of Church and State. I would like to think that my party, the Democratic party, also wants to adhere strongly to the Constitution, as well. Let the Republicans piss all over our founding document while simultaneously describing it as honoring the Constitution by "showering it with gold."


Democrats can be religious, I have no problem with that (yet I will still mock their religion, but they are free to believe anything they want.) I just wish that they would make their religion a personal and private thing; not incorporate it into their political character they play on TV.


Krauthammer is a vile human who has contorted reality to such an extent that if one is a conservative Christian who claims God damned America because of America's morality, that is ok, because it is the strong Christian morals speaking, not hatred of America. But if a liberal Christian utters "God Damn America" forget all about the underlying Christain morals, focus on the hatred of America.


I can only surmise that if you make your bed with Christian morality, then wherever that morality leads is fine, no matter what the consequences (America deserved it). but if you make your bed with the Constitution and holding dear the idealism that is America, then Christian morals lead you to violate your first, true calling, that is America.


Democrats need to remember this. Leave religion, like sex, at home in their personal lives. Let the Republicans force their religious views and sexual appetites into the public. Live by the sword, die by the sword. Republican's sword is sex and religion. Democrats sword is the U.S. Constitution.

Thanks to Sadly, No! for the heads up.

Separation of Church and State

Ok, so I was bored, and looked this up on youtube. Here were two videos that I found (it was a part one and part two):





I am shocked. Really shocked. Apparently, being nonChristian means that one is not an American. Apparently, only by being Christian can one be honest and moral and a true American. Apparently, the first amendment was only meant to give equality among all Christians, but to place all non-Christians as not just second-tier citizens, but non-Americans because they are not Christians.

Well, I am not a vulgar person. But I have this to say: Fuck You. Fuck you for denying me my Americanism because I am not Christian.

Why the Republican Establishment Hates Mike Huckabee

I should have added (And I Love Him) to the title. The core of the Republican party is only concerned with tax cuts and anti-government sentiment. This is the establishment of Republicanism. As a very liberal libertarian, I can almost --ALMOST-- understand that core sentiment. The real problem is that in reality it does not work. Just like people need laws to keep them from freely murdering, raping and stealing, big businesses, politicians and leaders of all stripes need regulation to keep them in line. The same goes for taxes. Taxes are needed for everything from roads to national defense to health and protecting everyone from tyranny. There is a balance in everything.

But at the core of republicanism is this need to destroy all that, no person should be abbiden to laws just as no corporation should be regulated. And taxes are evil because all they do is redistribute hard-earned wealth to lazy do-nothings who earned nothing. (A person should only have the priveledge to drive on a paved street if they are personally wealthy enough to pay for the entire paving of said street..) etc.

These core republicans find that because only about 1% of America can afford to carry those views, they need to fool many more Americans into voting for them and their views. As we all know this is accomplished by the whole "family values" platform. Get as many people as possible to vote for you because you will support their moralistic views (abortion, gays, anti-secularism, racism, and all other pro-Christianity stances).

But what happens when a politician comes around who is genuinely pro-values, and consequently weak on the true Republican positions?

You get a Republican candidate for president who is popular with the majority of Republicans but is hated by all the Republican elitists...

Welcome Mike Huckabee, to the real world (of the Republican Party). Surprising? Not to those of us who are capable of thinking. But to the Republican faithful, they cannot bring themselves to grasp the meaning of this perceived paradox.

Inspired by this post from the regular cast of characters of Sadly, No!.

P.S. I love Mike Huckabee not because I agree with him, or would even vote for him, but because he truly represents all that is wrong with Republicans; that and he could become their nominee. [Update: Wingnut Rich Lowry agrees with my premise... Thus we have to support the huckster!!]

Politics, Religion and Mitt Romney

By now I am sure you've read something about Mitt Romney's big speech on his religion, and religious views. There have been many commentaries on it; e.g. The Rude Pundit's take (warning, he uses profanity), and Kevin Drum's thoughts. Even David Brooks has something to say in his NYT column. Most of the discussion leans towards what Romney said versus what JFK said in his religion speech. Everyone, though, was bothered by the fact that Romney basically threw anyone who was nonreligious under the bus, saying:

Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom....Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.
....Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life itself, no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people.
....Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests. [Thanks to Kevin Drum for this quote]

And this Mitt Romney jewel:

It’s as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America - the religion of secularism. They are wrong.

Secularism can in no way be called a religion; it is exactly the freedom of religion. That is each and every individual is free to practice their own religion, but no governing body (be it the American government or the Vatican, or the U.N.) can force one set of religious beliefs onto an individual. How that can be considered in and of itself a religion is beyond me. But I have to give Mitt a pass here, he is not thinking on his own, he is parroting the false views and assertions of such Christian organizations as James Dobson's Focus on the Family, Tony Perkins and the American Family Association, and "traditional" religious establishments such as Coral Ridge Ministries.

So much has already been written about secularism, and how the conservative Christians use it as a dirty word that I really need not go into it here. Simply pointing out how absurd it is serves my purpose nicely. But it is important to point out because of what I do want to focus on in regards to Romney's speech; and that is the idea of freedom and religion being not just related, but intertwined: Without one you cannot have the other, says Romney.

I guess being the atheist, makes me the only one capable of actually reading and knowing the bible, as it is clear that being Christian, especially a conservative Christian prevents one from actually knowing anything about the bible. Unless, of course, it is reinterpreted (in a literal way naturally) by a minister and re-explained to the sheep, er.. flock, in mystical terms. "God is love", "For Jesus so loved the world..", "I am the light, the truth.." etc. All this love and hope and beauty explaining all the horror and blood and gore and murder found in the actual pages of the bible, once read for oneself. So let us look at Mitt Romney's ministerial sermon on religion and compare it to the bible.

Mitt claims religion and freedom are virtually synomynous. He says, "Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom....Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone." Let us see what the Bible has to say.

4 For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, 5 casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ, 6 and being ready to punish all disobedience when your obedience is fulfilled. [2 Corinthians 10:4-6 NKJV]

Hmm.... That deos not sound too much like freedom to me. And how can one like Romney allow for the freedom of other religions or those of the nonreligious if he is duty-bound to bring into captivity his every thought to God? I mean isn't it the mission of Christians to go out and convert nations to Jesus??

15 And He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned. [Mark 16:15-16 NKJV]

Does this sound like freedom to you? I cannot think of anything more antithical to freedom than making it your mission in life to convert those of other religions to yours.

But irony lives on, and the Christians out there who buy into this notion of freedom and religion being even compatible, let alone synomynous will read what Jesus and Paul say and still think that is freedom. Freedom to them is accepting God and capitulating to "His" every whim. They do it freely, and thus that is what freedom means. They do not see freedom to mean anything else. There is no freedom in being allowed to reject Christianity. And those that do are not free. I am not making this up. This is what they believe. Its root is found within the pages of the Bible. The only way to be free is to be a slave of God.

But it goes even further. Mitt claimed that, "Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life itself, no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people." He may be right about this, for it was Christians who fought against freeing the slaves, it was the same Christians who fought against civil rights and it was the Christians who now say that a woman no longer has the freedom to determine the status and condition of her own body, rather (conservative) Christianity has that right to her body. If it had not been for Christians wanting and fighting to prevent all those freedoms, then they would have never been earned, they simply would have existed. So in that sense, Mitt is correct, those freedoms would not have come into being, if it had not been for religion fighting against them.

But what really strikes me is that in spite of everything, Mitt is just flat out wrong. He seems to think that secularism is a new religion that is taking over America. But the reality is that it is Christianity that is the "new religion".. The natives to this land we all now live on are the keepers of the "old religion", theirs was one of nature and respect for nature. The European interlopers came over, killed them by the thousands, and forced Christianity upon them. Christianity is the only real new religion which is a pox upon society and humanity. (In this part of the world at least; I would claim the exact same for Islam in the middle east as well.)

But freedom (and liberty, for that matter) mean different things to Christians and the nonreligious. Just look at Jesus' words in the Gospel of John:

Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed [John 8:36 NKJV]

Here we have come full circle. Freedom is what you have in Jesus, and freedom is defined by Paul as bringing every thought into captivity for God. So I guess the apt analogy would be that animals caged in a zoo are actually free, but their brothers and sisters out in the wild are not free.

At least this is what Romney is selling you.

13 Months

We are exactly 13 months away from the general elections which will determine our next president, senators and congresspersons. It need not be said how I feel about those elections, I want Dems in, Reps out. But this is not a political blog, it is a blog of principles. So I will refrain from the political. I want to stress the values, the important issues, which make this great country strong. Clearly I believe that democrats are the true harbinger of those values. But that is, again, not the point. It is, after all, the values themselves which are important. For a briefest of explanations, I will simply state that Constitutional values and the values found in the Bill of Rights are what is important. (For the record, I even support the rights of the second amendment, the right to bear arms, but I think that with any right granted, it requires certain limits.)

So here we are a mere 13 months away from turning our great country back unto the right path (dare I say the "righteous path"?). And where are we?

We have an economic problem resulting from the "ownership society" philosophy of Bush and others. We have a major problem of "Bushism" in that we are embroiled in an untenable war in Iraq, and those supporters want to broaden it to include Iran. We have a values problem in that common Americans want liberty, but also want safety from terrorism. (I believe personally, that by maximizing liberty, we minimize terrorist acts against this country -- I merely offer this piece of wisdom: "By offering all groups in this country equal protection under the law, then outside groups cannot fault/hate us for belittliing/"demonizing" their groups.")

Who, in this country really offers this? The Republicans want to demonize so many groups that they almost cannot be counted; brown people, black people, red people, atheists, jews, hindus, buddhists, gays, "liberals", "foreigners", the poor, the sick, the elderly, the French, anyone deserving of Constitutional protections. They even mix up their protected groups at times; its ok for a Christian to own highly explosive weapons (even if they make threats towards other Americans) but it is imperative that brown "foreigners" who are legal citizens, cannot own those same weapons, because they might attend a Muslim mosque. They afford First Amendment rights to Christians, but deny them to Hindus or Buddhists (Christians can pray before our Congress, but they cannot).

Selectivity seems to be the hallmark of Republicans. Further evidence is the Craig/Vittner shakeup. It seems to be ok to search for sex outside marriage if it is with a member of the opposite sex, but it is completely wrong if it is gay sex.

Americans are fastly approaching the time when a real decision needs to be made. What do we want to be self-identified as? Do we want to be a country of liberty and freedom or the country of torture and world domination? Liberty and freedom requires, at a minimum, that all are granted those rights, not just Americans.

I do have good news though, the power of the religious right on the one hand, and the power of the industrial complex on the other, have both grown so enormous that they are now at loggerheads within the one party that embraces them both -- The Republican Party. Now the power of lower taxes and deregulation is butting up against the power of regulating people and the revenue necessary to do that. The Republicans are splitting apart now. James Dobson is railing against the leading candidates, yet the business establishment is rallying around those very same candidates.

All we really need to do at this point is not screw up. Stick to message, attack their weak points and we win. Here's the beauty of that. When we win, everyone wins. Liberty and freedom come back to this country en force.

I think America is starting to realize that.

Even More Christian Persecution Yet Again and Again

It is not even July -- months before the "official" Christian Persecution season begins (around Halloween, when some Christians attack other Christians for following PAGAN rituals). And yet, there is already blatherings of renewed Christian persecution going on. Over at the 700 Club's "news" page, you will find this story, "Jesus Mural Attacked by ACLU". Apparently, nothing was learned from the whole Judge Roy Moore fiasco a few years back.

It seems incredulous to those of the militant Christian right that there could actually be people out there who are not only not Christian, but do not subscribe to Christian beliefs. They (the militant Christians) seem unable to grasp that this is a country of laws, and that the law applies to everyone equally. To force the religious views of one sect (Christianity) onto others in the context of law is blatantly illegal.

To everyone of the Christian myth/dogma I say this: Keep your religious views in your home, in your church, in your private schools, and on the public streets where preachers are freely allowed to preach next to the wino alcoholics begging for your change. But do not force it upon me and others in the one refuge of all Americans from intolerance, and that is our courts of law.

P.S. The last line of the article says this: "He [one unnamed judge of Slidell, Louisiana] says that the ACLU is acting like a "legal bully." -- Yes because forcing Jesus down the throats of non-Christians is in no way "bullying" them...

Bulldog Alert! More fun with ChristianExodus

Yes, it is true, I just don't know if I can let this organization go without sinking my teeth into them any deeper. (And again, I want to stress that I like this org, and want them to hang around for years more, so that I have plenty of material for the future.)

Last time I mentioned a timeline. If you took a look at it, you know it is too easy a target. Have fun with it as a mental exercise, but I will leave it alone in all its grandstanding glory. What I want to look at is their "legal" Position Statement. The sheer zaniness of this is immediately clear for any first year law student, or any human with at least a semi-functioning brain.

First off, their intention:

ChristianExodus.org is an association of Christians who no longer wish to live under the unjust usurpation of powers by the federal government, and therefore resolves to formally disassociate itself from this tyrannical authority, and return to the model of governance of a constitutional republic. We seek a republican government constrained by constitutionally delegated powers. If this cannot be achieved within the United States, then we believe a
peaceful withdrawal from the union to be the last available remedy.

Ouch! Who knew that Interstates free of potholes was an abomination to God? Or maybe CEs Christians all are personally willing to donate their time charitably to pour concrete and build bridges in lieu of paying taxes.

South Carolina constitutional reforms:

ChristianExodus.org seeks to include many of our positions in a new constitution in South Carolina. For example, some constitutional guarantees ought to include the protection of human life at conception, the Ten Commandments as the foundation of law, the prohibition of any redefinition of marriage, and a strong reserve clause (reservation of undelegated powers to local government).

Yes, stoning to death any Muslim for the crime of believing in "other gods" sounds reasonable for a new "constitutional republic" as mandated by the first commandment of the venerable Ten Commandments.

Regarding the U.S. Constitution:

A simple distinction [between rights and privledges] can be made by asking oneself the question, "Is what I seek guaranteed to me by my Creator?" Some examples of rights include: life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, defense of private property, self-defense (bear arms), religious belief, etc.

God (the creator) granted the rights of liberty and religious belief? The authors of CE's position statement must have been on LSD when they wrote this. What did they sleep through their study of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, (Numbers), and Deuteronomy? All God did then (not to mention the next books regarding Israel's Judges and Kings) was kill outright all non-believers and those who chose liberty over complete submission to God.

And self defense? Well it is good to know that the Canaanites were morally right and the Hebrews were morally wrong, according to the master theologians of CE.

Then there's "pursuit of happiness".. Is not a gay man who pursues happiness a partaker of this right? Apparently, pursuit of happiness is just a euphemism for being utterly miserable.

Then there's the issue of private property. How much of the then Israel actually belonged to the Hebrews? If you were to bother to read the bible, you would learn that the answer is zero. It was all stolen via warfare and conquest. How can that be interpreted to mean a respect for private property? Just Askin'.

Next, there's this piece of excrement that defies all reason, either Christian pretzel logic or actual rationality:

ChristianExodus.org believes government may regulate behavior so long as the regulation does not violate unalienable rights of citizens. Legislation outlawing certain behaviors must reflect the will and values of the majority of the governed. It is within the unalienable rights of every community to define a set of behaviors that may be considered detrimental, unhealthy, unsafe, criminal, and undesirable for the community. To deny a community the right to govern such behaviors and reflect the values of the majority of its citizens is to impose tyrannical oppression on the community and deny its fundamental rights.

Someone explain to me how "pursuit of happiness" is an unalienable right, yet it can be limited by the whims of some (any) majority. I would really like to know how, if given the CE gets their society, that a Muslim majority moves into one Christian town, and votes to make Islam its official religion they could possibly complain? They could not, but you all know damn well they they would simply deny it. Try this mental experiment: Transplant Las Vegas to South Carolina. Now using CE's logic, they would, by their very own definition, be perfectly happy with that. This perfectly illustrates just how silly and dishonest they really are.

Notice how they twist 180 degrees what tyrannical oppression means. They say that a "majority" has the right to do anything they commonly vote (agree on) upon the minority -- yet that is somehow not tyranny. To them, tyranny means the minority having the right to live their lives in "the pursuit of happiness" in spite of the majority's wishes. Funny, I never before knew that oppression was the act of expressing the "unalienable rights" given by their God.

I really have to wonder how the leaders of CE would feel if America held a national referendum and the majority allowed abortion to continue. Would they issue a news release saying that they no longer considered abortion an issue, since America had spoken out against their position and drop it entirely as an issue. I really doubt it.

Their final statement on the purpose of government is the wackiest of all:

Government does not exist to redistribute wealth, to create means of production, to usurp the authority of the family, or to regulate the church. Moreover, the state's authority is subservient to the Creator's authority, and when in conflict, government must adjust its position to conform to God's natural law. This authority structure is imperative because should the state be considered supreme, our rights are no longer secure.

Pardon me here, but didn't their very own supreme dictator, Jesus Christ, state on more than one occasion that redistributing wealth was the moral thing to do? But don't take my word for it, take the Supreme Dictator's word on it: Luke 12:33, "Sell what you have and give alms; provide yourselves money bags which do not grow old, a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches nor moth destroys." Matthew 19:21 "Jesus said to him, 'If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.'"

I believe I can safely state that our rights are only no longer secure if these Christians gain control of our government.

Under the Status of Government banner, we have this jewel of compassion:

Americans have lost the ability to distinguish rights from privileges. American government routinely taxes the private property of producers and redistributes the revenue to individuals who have not earned it.

You see, the poor deserve the God-Given Right to live out on the street, starve and die of disease because the government has no right to supply these services. Only if the poor submit and give over their own personal religious beliefs to the Christian charities do they have the right to shelter, food and medical care.

Next:

Our federal government does not allow protection of the unalienable right to life of Americans in their mothers' wombs.

Here again we have the prime anti-abortion call. That being that a speck of cells (i.e. life just after conception) constitutes a full-fledged human being. I am not going to get into an abortion debate here, other than to say this: Considering the fact that there are many spontaneous abortions (fertilized eggs failing to implant in the womb) does that make God the biggest abortion doctor ever? Read the Pentateuch. God commands the killing of babies, pregnant women, and young children. Not even abortion doctors advocates this. Abortion is not only justified in the Bible, but intanticide, genocide, and general murder are advocated. At least we anti-bible types have better morals than the Judeo-Christian God.

And next:

American courts routinely violate the unalienable rights of individuals and communities to express their religious beliefs.

This is flat out false. No American (or any individual on American soil) has ever been denied their rights to religious freedom.. With the exception of Mormons who were told that they could not be polygamous. At least, according to CE, Utah should be allowed to return to their practice of polygamy since it would be voted so by the majority of its citizens. The problem with this is that it would invalidate their argument regarding "traditional marriage."

And next next:

The state of Massachusetts flagrantly declares that its authority is supreme to the Creator's when it redefines the God-ordained institution of marriage.

See above. God's institution of marriage is clearly laid out in the Old Testament. So just how many wives and concubines did David have, or Solomon? Oops! Traditional marriage isn't so traditional after all. And what about the "traditional" ban on interracial marriages throughout the South? Just what is a traditional marriage according to CE? I guess its all in what the current (non-traditional) thinking is. And what about the opinion of the majority? CE says that matters, but here they say it doesn't, their most recent concept of "tradition" is all that matters. I guess contradiction is a "right" to be written into CE's idea of their new Constitution.

Under the heading, "Intentions for Government" we find this gem:

Local government offers people choices and variety by way of easy relocation to a nearby community more in tune with their beliefs. Decentralized power promotes competition between communities that desire to attract new residents. That government is best which governs least and resides closest to the people.

That first sentence really is saying this, if your neighbors don't like you because you believe differently, then your only option is to uproot your family and move out. The fact that you have a job, friends, roots, means nothing, GET OUT! So what if you can't find a job in the community that does agree with your beliefs, that is YOUR FAULT!

The last sentence is the most absurd of all. It says that the absolute best government is no governement at all -- anarchy.


Religious freedom:

At no time in American jurisprudence has religious persecution been acceptable. Nor does ChristianExodus.org believe any tenets of the Christian faith promote persecution of other faiths. Our organization stands decidedly in favor of religious freedom and liberty for all human beings so long as their religious behaviors do not violate the God-given rights of others. Again, ChristianExodus.org will not support any efforts on the part of government to violate the unalienable right to freedom of religious belief. People of all faiths must have the same rights and freedoms guaranteed to them under law.

The only thing that can be said here is that honesty and straighforwardness are not values held CE. For they are giving religious freedom to all here (in violation of their other statments I have pointed out above) and yet also claim that the majority has the right to dictate morals. So what happens when a religion says that same-sex marriage is not only acceptable, but are performed under the auspices of the religious leaders. Then, by their claim here, same-sex marriage (i.e. their non-"traditional" marriage) would by default be acceptable to government.

Homosexuality:

ChristianExodus.org recognizes that homosexuality is an unhealthy, unsafe, detrimental behavior that affects all citizens in a community, not just the participants. Additionally, sexual conduct outside the bonds of marriage is not a God-given right. Therefore, homosexual activity is a behavior that a state may regulate and legislate against.

Of course, using this logic, then all pre-marrital and extra-marrital sex would also be illegal and punishable by jail time. Good luck funding all the jails that will be necessary to house everone who breaks that law without taxing residents. And to make this extra-silly, consider this: in violation of the no-redistribution of wealth via taxes, building jail cells and paying for food for the convicts would no be possible since those convicts should be paying their own way. This would turn convicts into forced laborers (i.e. slaves).

Furthermore, since homosexuality is not considered a sin by all Christian religions, then the religious freedom of those homosexuality-allowing Christians would have to be limited, in violation of the God-given right to religious freedom.

Religious displays in public:

Communities have a right to express values consistent with the majority of their citizens. This includes the public display of religious symbols such as crosses and the Ten Commandments. This communal right rests upon freedom of religious exercise and freedom of speech. However, there is no right to freedom from exposure to religious expression. To suggest otherwise would automatically negate and violate the unalienable rights of religious freedom and free speech. In other words, a religious minority in a community does not have a right to deny religious expression to the majority. As with all other communal decisions, the values and expressions of a community will inevitably result from popular will at the ballot box. If a religious minority does not like the decisions made by the majority, they may either relocate to another community or attempt to change the minds of the electorate and become the majority.

Finally, a fundie Christian organization who says outright that atheism is not a religion!

But it would be fun to watch all the CE members squirm under the blowback from their rules they set up. Imagine a Community taken over by CE later being re-taken by Catholics who then vote to place Mary statues and actual crucifixes (not crosses) all over town. And making "Hail Mary" the official prayer before all official government functions.

Education:

If public education exists, local control of education is paramount. Funding of local schools should come exclusively from local revenue. The local community alone should generate the policies and values expressed in schools.

Science and Math are right out the door. The Bible is God's science and math books. God set the value of pi=3.0. Man is the guilty party who redefined pi=3.14159.... CE's civil engineers will used only the God-ordained value of pi in their design of buildings and bridges. Biology and Medicine will become forbidden topics as God explained how to cure the sick and how all animals came to be and propagate.

Oh, and let's not forget literature. Instead of listing banned books, public schools will list acceptable books. Those books acceptable will be: The Bible and that is all.

Interests of minority in South Carolina:

If secession is effected in South Carolina, there will be a minority of unionists in the state. The under girding principle in a representative form of government is that majority rules. It then becomes the responsibility of the minority to relocate or change the policies of the state through the ballot box. It would be a great injustice to suggest that the preference of the minority ought to prevail over that of the majority.

In other words all minority only have the rights given them at the whim of the majority. If the majority deems that all members of the minority be rounded up and marked via tatoo and special clothing, to be later rounded up and placed in specialized "camps" that will be perfectly legal and acceptable to CE -- but only if the majority votes for it at the ballot box.

Religious tests for citizenship:

ChristianExodus.org does not desire the establishment of a theocracy where religious tests are required for citizenship. Also see our position on religious freedom above.

Exactly! CE does not desire a theocracy because a theocracy requires that God be the king of the government and its citizens, and CE knows that while God is king, he is not king of government. Or something like that. I certainly cannot figure out how making religious views and religiously-based morals the only law of the land is not defined as theocracy. I guess they can claim this because they want to write a direct violation of the Ten Commandments into their new Constitution, that being religious freedom and worshipping other gods.

16th Amendment:

We hold that the various States should repeal the 16th Amendment, which grants Congress the power to directly tax the people. Direct taxation of the people is contrary to the original intent of the Union and deprives the States of a powerful check on federal excess.

I guess that by this logic, then CE fully endorses the repeal of the 13th Amendment and a return to slavery as originally provisioned in the Constitution. This is to say nothing about the amendments allowing blacks, women and 18 year olds to vote. Since none of that was in the Constitution originally either.

Wouldn't that make a great recruitment advertisement for CE?? "Come join us in South Carolina. We plan to strip all women, blacks and 18 year olds of the right to vote. Oh and we're going to reinstitute slavery too!"

I really have to wonder who at Christian Exodus actually wrote all this garbage. I can only picture an inbred, home-schooled adult who was repeatedly dropped on their head as an infant. That seems to be the only way to produce a person so ignorant and illogical capable of writing this tripe.

Their Motto: "Do Absolutely Nothing"

I have mentioned Christian Exodus before. Believe it or not, I actually kinda, sorta like that organization. Why would you like them, O loyal atheist, jeffperado? Well, the reason is that no matter what, I know that at any time I can go there read up on them, and learn that they have done absolutely nothing in the intervening timespan. They put up new "news," update their timeline, try to sell fake coins, etc. But they never do anything. And that is always good for a hearty laugh.

I thought I'd trot over to their site and see what was new with them after the elections, considering that South Carolina was one of a handful of states which suffered few Republican losses. I thought they'd be ecstatic over that and singing of their triumphs over evil.

But, alas, no such mentions. It seems that even in the wins in South Carolina, they still managed to do nothing at all. I did, however, come across this lovely nugget of comedy gold..

Is It Time For a 3rd Party? (Posted November 11, 2006)

The total implosion of the "Republican" Congress on Tuesday and the GOP sprint toward getting out of Iraq by 2008 to retain the White House raise two more important questions. Will the Republican nominee for president in 2008 be nominally "pro-life" and "pro-marriage" (not like any of them actually are, but their claims allow Religious Right leaders to hide behind lies)? And if the candidate is NOT, what will Falwell, Dobson and Robertson do?

I read this and my heart almost skipped a beat.. I say almost because in the very next instant I remembered this was the Christian equivalent of a chronic pot smoker -- Do nothing all day long but eat and crap. So let's read between the lines and see what was really said:

"Republican" Congress -- God doesn't support losers, and God loves Republicans, so these assclowns must be RINOs. Just because Santorum voted against gays does not make him a real "Republican", he has to be a winner as well.

Will the Republican nominee for president in 2008 be nominally "pro-life" and "pro-marriage" -- Will the "Republican" nominee jettison all this "compassionate" junk and treat women and gays with all the disrespect they deserve?

(not like any of them actually are, but their claims allow Religious Right leaders to hide behind lies)? -- Stoopid Religious Right leaders, they are not real Christians because they support politicians who do exactly what we want, except win.

what will Falwell, Dobson and Robertson do? -- Vote Constitution Party!

I've seen some calls for the leaders of the Religious Right to create a national 3rd party for social conservatives, and I want to register my dissent for such an idea... sort of! Their version of a national 3rd party will involve spending money and resources in all 50 States of the Union (including MA, CA, VT, NY, etc.), a surefire recipe for failure and waste. Furthermore, their party would likely call for compliance with unconstitutional, illegal acts from Washington until such a time as we finally win at the national level - a day never to be seen. Christians, those who actually live, act and believe like true Christians, are outnumbered in America and we'll lose at the national level abysmally.

I've seen some calls for the leaders of the Religious Right to create a national 3rd party for social conservatives, and I want to register my dissent for such an idea... sort of! -- I want to do nothing and then whine about it!

Furthermore, their party would likely call for compliance with unconstitutional, illegal acts from Washington -- Furthermore, their party would likely call for obeying the established law of the land, and we can't have that.

a day never to be seen -- ...because we never do anything.

Christians, those who actually live, act and believe like true Christians, are outnumbered in America -- ...because none of us actually live that way. We just want all our neighbors to live as we tell them to live.

we'll lose at the national level abysmally -- ...because we are infested with them there gays! That, and we never do nuthin'. Damn gay agenda!

Any political party raised up by Christians for defense of Christian principles must be regional and must be built upon Acts 5:29. Any other effort is doomed to failure.

Any political party raised up by Christians for defense of Christian principles must be regional -- Yeah, like regional down to my very single Church.

and must be built upon Acts 5:29 -- Yeah, so I can bang 14 year old girls and them claim that "God told me to do it, so you with your mere human rules can't touch me (I dare you to prove that God didn't tell me this)."

And that is today's edition of Fun with Christian Whining; the "Do Nothing" Organization.

Postscript: On a serious note, Acts 5:29 (which the president of Christian Exodus wants to base the entire rule of law upon) actually says: But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: “We ought to obey God rather than men." This is what Christian Exodus wants to base their entire (new) constitution on. Rule of God, not man. That seems to be a rather risky position, given that Jesus, himself, had this to say about government: "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s" [Matthew 22:21 - NKJV]. More proof of the Flanders Effect... Obeying the entire Bible, even the contradictory parts. Although if I were a Christian, I would much rather base my government on Jesus' words, and not those of some Christ Denyin' flunkie like Peter. Whom I might add, was also shot down by Paul as well -- [Galatians 2:9 NKJV] And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, and [Galatians 2:11 NKJV] But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. It seems that this Cephas/Peter fellow was wrong quite often. Is his word the best CE can come up with (outside of the obvious, it would let the leaders do anything they wanted and then get away with it because God told them to do it, and no man can speak to God's commands).


If you want a real good laugh, check out their timeline and plan. Looks like its time for another revision.