Republicans Have Themselves a 3-Way

The news cannot possibly be better. Likely Republican primary voters have a new darling. The new “Not_Mitt”? Newt Gingrich.

Newt Gingrich is surging in the polls, taking up the slack that Rick Perry’s eternal gaffes and Herman Cain’s poor treatment of the best of us has produced.

That’s what Politico says anyway. From Politico:

“A new Public Policy Polling survey out Monday has him in first place, hitting 28 percent. He’s a close second behind Mitt Romney in both Monday’s CNN/ORC International poll, which showed him at 22 percent, and the McClatchy-Marist poll out Friday, which showed him at 19 percent”

That’s right. The new front runner, or second-front runner depending on which poll you are willing to believe, has former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich back up at the top.

Perry? Stick a fork in him, he’s done.

So let me get this straight. Republican primary voters will choose between an African-American businessman with no real prior experience in government other than trying to figure out how to pay it as little as possible in taxes, and a Teabagger to boot that is so intertwined with the Koch brothers that you don’t know where one ends and the other begins, and Newt a former congressman who resigned from congress in disgrace rather than take ownership over the fact that he was responsible for the 1998 election disaster for his party – while simultaneously cheating on his dying wife in an affair with his present wife.

An affair that he carried out while conducting impeachment procedings against Bill Clinton, who was accused of essentially the same thing.

Oh… and Mitt. Mitt Romney, a man who will not receive 20% of Republican votes because he is a Mormon.

Republican “Values Voters” are finally going to reap what they have sown. They will have to decide between two womanizers and a Mormon.

A friend shared a 1994 quote from Barry Goldwater recently and I think it is totally apropos to repost it here. It is so clear that his prediction has come to fruition.

“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.”

Amen.

The Mark of Cain: 9-9-9 or 666?

It took Michele Bachmann’s outlandish comment in last night’s Republican presidential candidates’ debate to help me put this thing together that has been nagging me at some fundamental level for a while now.

Bachmann called out Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 tax plan last night.

999 upside down, obviously, is 666. And to evangelical Christians, 666 is the mark of the devil.

“When you get the 9-9-9 plan and turn it upside down the Devil’s in the details.”

And going back even further, it is the Mark of Cain.

And this is truly ironic, because we have in this presidential race a crazy evangelical Christian, two Mormons, and an African-American. And some of us know that Mormons had a previous problem with African-Americans in that they felt that they were all descendents of Cain.

They bore the mark of Cain.

“Cain slew his brother....and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin.”        - Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, pages 290-291

This, by the way, has all been taken back by the LDS church. Taken back in 1978,

And so it was the crazy evangelical that brought it up. Herman Cain bears the Mark of Cain and his taxation plan is the devil’s plan.

Huntsman and Romney both knew the heavy thick brown stuff that she had just stepped in and kept silent.

On Teaching Creationism in Texas

Take a look at this AP video shot in Portsmouth, New Hampshire of Rick Perry speaking to a boy and at the same time answering his mother’s questions.

You get that? Rick Perry actually told the boy that both Creationism and Evolution were taught in public schools.

Politifact rates this claim as false, but I take exception to that.

Now it is true that the state’s school board just went through that exercise as its young Earth Creationist members struggled to add Creationist notions to the state curriculum. As close as they could come to doing that is the recommendation that students look at all theories “from all sides.”

Assuming that one such side is the Intelligent Design side, this opens the door, at least, to teaching Creationism in Texas public schools.

So that seems to justify what Perry claimed, in a small way at least.

But here is the thing. I know for a fact that, here in Texas, if a high school biology teacher is deeply religious, and believes in the Biblical story in Genesis, that teacher will devote instructional time to the Creationist point of view.

Even if it isn’t in the curriculum.

So getting back to Perry’s claim that both Creationism and Evolution are taught in Texas public schools, I’d have to agree. Perry made a simple affirmative statement, not qualifying as to whether this was sanctioned by state standards.

The trouble is, and Perry is extremely good at doing this, the way he said it makes it sound like Texas’s curriculum standards call for doing just this.

Creationists Are at it Again in Texas

Texas’ State Board of Education has taken up the matter of Evolution vs. Creationism again today in a hearing to decide on supplemental materials for the state’s science curriculum. Barbara Cargill, the board’s religious evangelical ex-biology teacher who ascribes to a young Earth creationist creed will head up the discussion.

About the only positive thing you can say about Cargill is that she is an EX-biology teacher and is no longer infringing on the religious beliefs (or non-religion) of her students with her own interpretation of cosmology.

The Texas Freedom Network is there in their usual place live blogging the meeting. Their position has been clear from the beginning that any reference to the pseudoscience known as Creationism or Intelligent Design should be eschewed by the state, and not be made a part of the state’s curriculum. Robert Scott, the Education Commissioner has come out with a set of recommendations on which materials should be adopted, and the TFN has given that set its blessings. Now it is up to the SBOE to either accept those recommendations or to go out into the ether and try to ram through its own conservative agenda.

This seems less likely than in the past. Apparently  the successor to Cynthia Dunbar, Republican Marsha Farney, has proven to be a thorn in the sides of the evangelical bloc, and has reduced the former bloc of seven uberreligious votes to 6 (in Cargill’s own words, there are only 6 “true Christians” on the board now).

It should be interesting to watch. In the past, the boards foray into wackydom has been famously dealt with in other states with laws being passed to avoid any materials approved by Texas’ SBOE. Whether sanity has actually won the day in the state school board remains to be seen.

With this bunch, always expect the worse.

Rick Perry: Worse for Our Nation

Well there’s a surprise.

Today Travis County Democratic Party announced that at the very same time that Governor Rick Perry, along with the American Family Association, are holding a prayer vigil and fasting at Houston’s Reliant Stadium on August 6^th, they will hold a counter rally on the steps of Texas’ state capitol building.

From the Austin American-Statesman:The latter alluding to the fact that Rick Perry is considering a run for the presidency, a move that is sure to excite the Tea Party base – those who aren’t gaga-eyed over Michele Bachmann anyway.

“Party officials say the noon rally on Aug. 6 will be called ‘Rick Perry: Bad for Texas, Worse for Our Nation.’”

Perry has been nipping at the heels of President Obama for the past few months, culminating in his (or his ghost writer’s) book, “Fed Up.” Get it? Fed. Federal Government. Ha. Ha. Ha.

So this event, The Response, is Perry’s attempt to grab himself some national spotlight. Allying himself with the Creator of the Universe, like so many Republicans before him, is practically Step 1 in the GOP playbook. And now we see a counter rally. Not one that opposes God, it seems, but one that opposes Rick Perry’s self-promotion as a conduit to Jesus and His Father.

Her officials within her are like wolves tearing their prey; they shed blood and kill people to make unjust gain.  Her prophets whitewash these deeds for them by false visions and lying divinations. They say, 'This is what the Sovereign Lord says'_when the Lord has not spoken.

- Ezekiel 22: 27-28

Evangelicals Want Perry for President

Rightwing Christian Evangelicals have been notably absent from the conversation on which of the current list of Republican candidates they would prefer to see be the nominee. And now we know why.

They want none of the above.

With two Mormons, one womanizer, one person of the wrong sex, one person of the wrong race, one ethically challenged and one milquetoast currently in the race it is no wonder that the evangelicals are singularly unimpressed.

So when Time learned that a conference call between evangelical leaders took place in early June, and that they agreed that they wanted Texas governor Rick Perry to run for president, can we be surprised?

From Time:

“In early June, TIME has learned, a group of prominent figures on the Christian Right held a conference call to discuss their dissatisfaction with the current GOP presidential field, and agreed that Rick Perry would be their preferred candidate if he entered the race. Among those on the call were Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council; David Barton, the Texas activist and go-to historian for the Christian Right; and John Hagee.”

And believe me, Perry has the bonafides. He prayed for rain at Easter and got none, shuttering the fireworks stands at the 4^th of July, he prayed on the morning of his inauguration then destroyed the careers of 100,000 educators, and he is organizing “The Response,” a plan to bring 70,000 Christians together for 7 hours of prayer and fasting.

And he’s from The South.

Now if that doesn’t qualify you to run for President, nothing will.

And you know what? I agree with these guys. Perry ought to run. Thing is, I doubt he will. Rick Perry knows how bad he is at debate. He is awful. Michele Bachmann is a better debater than Rick Perry is. And while he got away with not debating Bill White in last year’s gubernatorial election, refusing to debate his fellow Republican candidates, and refusing to debate Barack Obama will not set well with Americans.

No, Rick Perry may be a great prayer (with little to show for in heavenly response) but he is a lousy debater.

22% of Republicans/Independents Just Say No to Mormons

Gallup came out with a new poll on Monday that turns out to be pretty timely. Released 1 day before the entry of Jon Huntsman into the Republican presidential fray is the new poll showing that 22% of Republicans and Independents would not vote for their party’s nominee if the nominee was a Mormon.

Now while the poll did not sample whether the opinion was based on the flavor of their religion, this number – 22% - is almost exactly the same number that represents the Rightwing Evangelical subdivision of the Republican Party.

This number is also a fairly steady number, not having changed significantly since Gallup first asked this question in 1967. As a matter of fact, of the nine characteristics that Gallup polled on (black, woman, Hispanic, etc.) six groups scored lower in terms of likelihood one would withhold their vote, and two groups scored higher.

The characteristics that are less popular than being Mormon? Gays/Lesbians and Atheists.

Now the question I would have is this: if the only choice in a presidential election was between a Mormon and a left of center black man, would any of these 22% vote for the black man? My guess is that they won’t do that either.

The result is, of course, fewer votes for the Mormon, and no change for the black man.

So given that, what happens to the Republican primary voter who bases his/her vote on the likelihood that this candidate will beat Barack Obama in 2012? If they are assured that nearly a quarter of them will not vote if the nominee is a Mormon, how likely are they to vote for the Mormon?

Now in truth this should not even be at issue in a political campaign, yet even now, in the 21^st century the issue persists because of deeply held beliefs that being a Mormon is not synonymous with being a Christian. But as long as those beliefs persist I think it is more likely that a black undocumented Kenyan will be elected president before a Mormon will even get a chance.

Congressman Weiner Needs Jesus

Now this should come as no surprise to some of us, particularly we jaded observers of the ongoings of human events, but apparently according to Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr. President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, it seems clear that Congressman Anthony Weiner should come to Jesus as there is no treatment for sin.

No, I swear, he tweeted it.

"Dear Congressman Weiner: There is no effective "treatment" for sin. Only atonement, found only in Jesus Christ.”

The sheer opportunism that this represents is enough to turn my stomach, and believe me I have had ample opportunity to have my stomach turned of late.Now as someone who does not profess or practice a religion, this sort of comment makes me uneasy. When Tiger Woods got into so much hot water because of his (real) affairs, he was admonished by the Fox evangelical Brit Hume that he would be well-encouraged to drop his Buddhist beliefs and come into the light. This made me uneasy. But Buddhists and the Christians haven’t really had a historical knockdown drag out like the Christians and Jews have. So if Hume’s remark to Tiger Woods on his religion could strike me with disquiet, imagine how a Christian leader’s similar remark, on the Internet, to Anthony Weiner, a Jew, would strike me.

But thanks be to Jesus Christ, Savior of the World, that not all Christians are of like mind, that not all Christians prioritize the truth of their religion over the falsehoods of others. Me too, I like the idea of having multiple deities to call on. Here is part of a resolution that the United Church of Christ adopted in 1987:

“Faced with this history from which we as Christians cannot, and must not, disassociate ourselves, we ask for God's forgiveness through our Lord Jesus Christ. We pray for divine grace that will enable us, more firmly than ever before, to turn from this path of rejection and persecution to affirm that Judaism has not been superseded by Christianity; that Christianity is not to be understood as the successor religion to Judaism; God's covenant with the Jewish people has never been abrogated. God has not rejected the Jewish people; God is faithful in keeping covenant.”

If anything, all Dr. Mohler’s tweet does, as far as I am concerned, is to reaffirm to me that this “history” is still not a part of history. It is still with us.

God help us.

Sugar Land Haters Continue Unabated

Now I don’t live there, but I go there from time to time and let’s just say that if you want to see some bat guano crazed Republicans in action, attend a Sugar Land political function. Texas Republicans, they say, occupy a narrow far right spot on the political spectrum. A faction of Sugar Land Republicans occupy a place so far to the right it makes Genghis Khan look like a socialist.

And why do I bring this up? Well it seems the Republicans have themselves a runoff election for a spot on the Sugar Land city council. A Republican runoff in that both candidates have served in various Republican functions. And last week an anonymous mailer was sent to voters in the district accusing one of them, Farha Ahmed, as being the lawyer who defended Aafia Siddiqui, aka “Lady al-Qaida” in a New York federal criminal trial where she was accused of trying to shoot US soldiers in Afghanistan.

An accusation that would be interesting if it weren’t for the fact that Ms. Ahmed is not a criminal trial lawyer, not licensed to practice law in New York, and not licensed to try cases in federal court.

In other words an unbelievable smear campaign tinged with racism and religious zeal. In my own humble opinion it has the right wing Evangelicals’ brand on it, even though it is an anonymous flier.

And how do I come to this conclusion? Read the statements of the two heads of the two Republican Parties in Fort Bend County, conservative Gary Gillen (former Republican county chair) and ultra-conservative Rick Miller (current Republican county chair).

Gillen: …because Sugar Land has always prided itself on its diversity and this is obviously a smear campaign. So it really is shocking, it’s below the dignity of Sugar Land.

Miller: Voters should look into the allegations on the flyer before they make their own decisions about how to vote.

Any question in your mind?

What’s With All This Shariya Law Hysteria?

Really. What’s with it? How did it all get started? Whose best interests does it serve?

Social conservatives are just in a dither about how those Muslims are going to impose Shariya Law on America. How Americans are going to have to stone each other for not observing this or that Muslim rite, and how we will be forced to cut off the hands of convicted thieves.

You know, Shariya Law stuff.

There’s this legislator in Oklahoma who is submitting a bill to ban “any law, rule, legal code or system" not rooted in the Constitution of Oklahoma or the United States.” No, read about it here, I’m serious. The whole reason for the bill is to prevent the establishment of Shariya Law, the judicial system of orthodox Muslims like the Taliban. You know, the people we are in a shooting war with in Afghanistan.

How they think Shariya Law would ever become the law of the land here in America is beyond wonderment. Establishment of any religion, Christian or otherwise, is specifically forbidden by the 1^st Amendment to the Constitution. It could never happen, and the ban has already been taken care of.

So why do these yahoos think that Shariya Law is the next big thing here in America? How do they think it is at all possible?

Could it be that social and evangelical conservatives are, themselves, trying to invoke their own form of Shariya Law and have had some success with that? Anti-choice bills have become the law in several states. Anti-choice bills are essentially philosophically based on the notion that life begins at conception, a notion that has no scientific basis at all. A notion that is entirely based on religious belief. And what about state constitutional amendments passed, including here in Texas, that forbids gays and lesbians from being legally married? What’s the basis for that? I’ll tell you what these laws are based on.

Leviticus 18:22:

“Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.”

So you see, laws based on religious belief are here with us now. Indeed, America has a long tradition of suppression and control based on religious belief. The evangelical right do it all the time so it stands to reason that Muslims, fanatical Muslims, will one day take over and impose their religion on all America.

So so, these people think anyway.

Evangelicals ‘Get Religion’ on Debt

Well it seems that the followers of Jesus have gotten religion in a whole new way: Debt is immoral.

Yes, it’s true. When George W. Bush took a Clinton budget surplus and turned it into a multi-trillion dollar deficit, and when two unnecessary and unfunded wars were waged so that we wouldn’t have to “fight them over here,” these very selfsame people looked the other way at the former, and wildly applauded the latter.

But debt, they now realize, something that happens when you subsidize corporations and wage costly wars, debt is immoral. It’s ungodly. Jesus hates debt.

So now we have Ralph Reed, you know, the guy who bilked Native Americans out of hundreds of thousands of dollars, singing sweet syrupy syllables at the Tea Party for exposing the federal government for their unholy indebtedness. 

“You can't give the Tea Party enough credit in terms of raising the consciousness about this issue.”

I swear it’s true. Ralph Reed actually said that.

And just you wait and see how these characters plan to attack this heresy, this unholy indebted blight on our society. They’ll start by defunding “Obamacare.” Then there’s that whole Medicare/Medicaid social experiment that we can ill afford. And all of that big pile of money set aside for Social Security is just going to waste in the federal coffers. They would much rather put it to work by privatizing it and letting the proceeds pay down the debt. And no more taxpayer dollars to support Planned Parenthood and pay for some silly woman’s abortion.

That’s how you end debt. Not by taking away the Bush tax cuts for the very wealthy. The very wealthy need that money so they can build more McDonald’s franchises and pay minimum wage to an ever increasing supply of high school dropouts.

I have always thought it was remarkable how conservatives have made the Christian religion their own, and use it against whatever and whoever they politically oppose. But in this they have truly outdone themselves.

And hopefully, undone themselves.

Louisiana Rejects Teaching Creationism in Public Schools

You’ve got to be kidding.

As an educator, I know that when a teacher tries to relocate from Louisiana to Texas they are seriously scrutinized. Louisiana, says the common wisdom, simply doesn’t hold a candle to the level of instruction that takes place in Texas’ classrooms. Its teachers, are not exactly responsible for this, it’s the system that they are forced to teach within.

Enter stage left: the state’s Board of Elementary and Secondary Education this week rejected the critiques of evangelical Christians that demanded that evolution be taught as one of several explanations for speciation. That evolution is merely yet another attempt to make sense of scientific observation. This week they rejected all of these arguments and adopted a science textbook whose sole explanation for “the story of life” is in evolutionary theory.

The Louisiana Coalition for Science, a more focused lobby group, but similar to Texas’ Texas Freedom Network, released the following statement on this coup:

“We are pleased and proud that the board has done the right thing. As a result, students in Louisiana public schools will have the most current, up-to-date information about biology, including the theory of evolution, which is the strongest explanation of the history and development of life on Earth ever constructed.”

More current, I might add, and more up-to-date than students in neighboring Texas will receive now or in the future.

Texans take note: Louisiana has taken the lead here in the deep South and is forging on ahead of you and your school system.

At some point, I expect, Texas teachers, especially biology teachers, will have to be seriously scrutinized if they ever decide to move to Louisiana in order to ply their trade. Because if you are trained to say that evolution is merely a theory that is on par with the theory that Earth, the universe and all life was created on a 6-day creation schedule, and this soon followed by a catastrophic flood that destroyed the dinosaurs, you tend to lose your edge.

And your brains tend to turn to mush.

Dallas Baptists: Religious Diversity is Anti-Christian

Have you ever said “Merry Christmas” to a Jew? How about a Muslim? How would you like it if a Muslim said to you “Eid Mubarak” (عيد مبارك) wishing that you have a blessed Eid ul-Fitr?  

And you don’t celebrate Eid ul-Fitr, don’t know anyone who does, and don’t even know what you do to celebrate it?

Like it or not, this is a diverse nation. More diverse than when my ancestors made the trip from the old country, and their religion, and everyone else’s for that matter, was some form of Christianity.  But back then there was enough of a difference between the Christian sects, and such religious persecution, that it caused my European ancestors to leave their homeland in search of a country that was more tolerant of religious differences.

And now we seem to have come full circle. We are now where Europe was in the mid-19^th century, and we are now persecuting those who exercise some religious tolerance, persecuting those who exercise some consideration for those of us who have differing religious views.

These new persecutors, among others are the First Baptist Church of Dallas, Texas. The next Torquemada of the next Inquisition.

The First Baptist Church of Dallas has taken it upon itself the task of having people leave messages on their website GrinchAlert.com turning in businesses who take diversity seriously and try not to offend those among us with differing, that is, non-Christian religious (or non-religious) points of view.

Their point is, I take it, that Christmas is all about Jesus the Savior of the World, and to deny Him the celebration of His Birthday is . . .what . . . anti-Christian?  Anti-American?

Anti-something, anyway.

They identify businesses as “naughty” and “nice.” Naughty businesses scrupulously avoid wishing their customers “Merry Christmas,” preferring “Happy Holidays.” Other businesses sell Christmas ornaments, or should I say Xmas ornaments, but not the kind that have Jesus in the manger or angels or religious sentiments.

“Nice” businesses do all of that.

The idea is to get like-minded Christians who deny the validity of any other religion not to shop at these “naughty” shops. Sort of like how the Taliban takes a dim view of Infidels or how Saudis don’t want our soldiers to drink beer while in their country.

So where did they get “naughty” and “nice?” Could it be from that seasonal holiday song about a mythical elf that bestows toys upon all the children of the world (or at least the Christian children, anyway) on Christmas Eve?

The song that more than any other, is responsible for the secularization of Christmas?

And I hate to break it to my Christian brethren, but history runs very much counter to the whole Jesus being born on December 25^th thing. Christmas may have been hijacked by Free Enterprise in the 20^th century, but originally Christmas was hijacked by the 5^th century Roman Church when they saw their members celebrating the festival of the Invincible Sun – a three-day H-E-Double Hockey Sticks raiser that centered around the Winter Solstice, and a celebration of the sun returning on its journey back to the south with the promise of warmer days to come.

Put Christ back into Christmas? How about putting Sol back into the Solstice?

And how about getting back to the principles of our Founding Fathers and practice a little religious tolerance. Now more than ever because we’re not all Christians anymore, are we?

Ah, The Grinch, that green-skinned creature mentioned in the Book of Mark. Or was it the Book of John?

The Book of Seuss?

Free Birth Control Pills

I was waiting for this. Rightwing Evangelicals will soon be on the march and raise a hue and cry to repeal “Obamacare” because it kills children.

Or, as they say, potential children.

This is because, as I see in today’s Houston Chronicle, there is an interpretation of the Mikulski Women’s Health Overhaul amendment that would “require insurers to cover preventive care and screenings for women at little or not cost to them” is actually wording that guarantees free birth control pills to all comers.

Evangelicals are coming unglued as we see in the article:

“‘We don't consider it to be health care, but a lifestyle choice,’ said John Haas, president of the National Catholic Bioethics Center, a Philadelphia think tank whose work reflects church teachings. ‘We think there are other ways to avoid having children than by ingesting chemicals paid for by health insurance.’”

Now whether “preventive care” made free goes beyond free mammograms to include prevention of conception, generally not considered a disease, is neither here nor there. [But wouldn’t it be great if indeed birth control was not something someone has to opt out of because of the added expense?] The article goes on and strays back into the world of reason, pointing out that birth control pills is very mainstream these days.

“The use of birth control is ‘virtually universal’ in the U.S., according to a government report this summer from the National Center for Health Statistics. Nearly 93 million prescriptions for contraceptives were dispensed in 2009, according to IMS Health, a market analysis firm. Generic versions of the pill are available at Walmart stores, for example, for $9 a month.”

“Still, about half of all pregnancies are unplanned, and many occur among women using some form of contraception. The government says the problem is rarely the birth control method, but "inconsistent or incorrect use," such as forgetting to take a pill.”

“Advocates say free birth control would begin to address the problem.”

“‘We can look at other countries where birth control is available for no cost, and what we see are lower pregnancy rates, lower abortion rates and lower teen pregnancy,’ said Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood.”

Yes. Wouldn’t it be nice if America was more like other countries where there are lower teen pregnancies and lower abortion rates?

Proposition 8 Blowback

I and others are still waiting for the thunder and lightning to start in California. And not the thunder and lightning from an infuriated deity raining death and destruction on a state that says it’s OK for gays and lesbians to get married.

The thunder and lightning from the righteous evangelical rightwing.

I expected something slightly less than a shooting war to break out over this. Instead, this is what you get:

Crickets.

Could it be that the logic and reasoning found in Judge Walker’s 138-page decision, including 80 findings of fact, was just too much for them? I doubt it. When was the last time that a conservative evangelical shied away from an argument simply because they didn’t have any facts on their side?

Crickets.

OK, I lied. I did come across two issues that have been brought up. Issues that are so ridiculous on their face that they’ll soon go away.

Issue Number 1: The judge struck down Proposition 8 because he, himself, is gay. “Gay and out” is the proper term, meaning that he doesn’t hide the fact that he is gay. They say that because he is gay that he failed to be impartial in the case.

So does this mean, by that line of logic, that black judges can’t preside over the trial of an African-American accused of a crime? Because they might be impartial? What about a female judge not being able to rule in a sexual harassment case because one of the litigants is a female?

Right, that piece of logic is absurd on its face. It even lends support to Judge Walker’s conclusion that denial of the right to marry presumes that gays are inferior. The presumption is that gays can’t rule in a gay rights trial but a Catholic judge is perfectly able to rule in an abortion trial.

Issue Number 2: Marriage functions in our society based on (as we see in this Christian Science Monitor piece)  this argument:

“Heterosexual relationships need marriage because of inferiority: the physical inferiority of sexual defenders to sexual attackers and the moral inferiority of male sexual attackers. Marriage is not about couples or lovers – it’s about the physical and moral integrity of women.”

Get it? Without marriage, weak but virtuous women would be subjugated by brutish men with no moral compass. That, and not procreation, is the sole purpose of marriage.

Fine.

If that’s the case then I guess we should outlaw the marriages of the elderly.

Or really, outlaw the marriages of any couple who can demonstrate that the male has trouble decking his bride-to-be, or for that matter, the female can demonstrate her ability to successfully clock her groom.

If marriage is all about who is the victor of a inter-spousal knock-down drag-out, then yeah, you win.

Leo Berman: Evangelicals “Don’t Understand” the Politics of Immigration

A very real schism is forming among conservatives. It is a schism that is most certainly a deal breaker in Republican politics, as evidenced by an observation of immigration hardliner State Rep. Leo Berman (R - Intolerance). One that I am very taken with.

Let me set this up. If you are conservative you look at the issue of immigration in one of three ways: 1) the visions of Evangelicals, 2) the views of conservative businessmen, and 3) the vomit of hardliners.

Evangelicals are family oriented and see the need for having “a solid balance between justice and compassion.” Compassion, say, for the compassion they have to the millions of illegal aliens who would be separated from their American citizen relatives, splitting fathers and sons, mothers and daughters. Evangelicals don’t want to discuss immigration unless it has in it provisions for a “path to citizenship.”

Conservative businessmen are looking at immigration in terms of a need to cheaply fill the jobs in agriculture, hospitality, and construction that no American will do – at least not for the kind of pay that illegal aliens accept.

Hardliners want all illegal aliens to leave, no questions, ifs, ands or buts. They are by definition criminals when they broke the immigration laws.

It creates an alliance between Evangelicals and conservative businessmen against the third, more odious branch of conservatism – the hardliners.

And why are hardliners so . . . well . . . hard line about illegal aliens? Enter Leo Berman.

“Berman said he believes a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants is a path to creating Democratic voters.” 

“‘There's 25 million in the United States - you can't listen to the 8 million to 12 million numbers that come out of Washington every day - you're going to create an instant 25 million Democrats,’ Berman said.”

“‘I don't think these evangelical leaders understand that.’”

Twenty-five million Democratic votes. That’s what’s behind the hardliner objection to illegal aliens getting legal residency. Becoming naturalized Americans.

Because as Richard Land, an evangelical who is president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission very correctly observes:

“If the conservative coalition is going to be a governing coalition, it's going to have to include an awful lot of Hispanics, and you're not going to bring an awful lot of Hispanics into your coalition with anti-Hispanic immigration rhetoric.”

So are the hardliners who oppose a path to citizenship the racists we have all been led to believe they are? Maybe, maybe not. The only thing that is certain is that the hardliner position may be racially inspired, but it is most definitely a position that speaks directly to their hopes to retain or regain political power in America.

It’s nice though, to have your prejudices complement your desire for political power from time to time.

Ask Pol Pot whose Khmer Rouge once famously wrote this: “To keep you is no benefit, to destroy you is no loss.”

Judy Jennings: Saving America from Texas SBOE Ideologues

Tomorrow, Friday May 21st will be infamously remembered as the day that the Texas State Board of Education ignored the pleadings of prominent educators, including George W. Bush’s own former Secretary of Education, Rod Paige, and finalize their highly politically inspired changes to the Texas social studies curriculum.

A curriculum which promises to de-emphasize slavery and the decades-long African-American struggle for equality. Said Paige, as quoted in USA Today:

“(The proposed Texas standards) drastically understate the influence of slavery and the Civil Rights movement in our national story – it almost suggests that students will be learning that our liberties – and especially African-Americans' freedoms – were kind of gently acquired. The liberty and freedoms that African-Americans enjoy were born out of struggle – deep struggle. Nobody just woke up in the morning and said, 'O.K., you're free”

A curriculum which promises to propose that the founding fathers did not necessarily believe in the principle of the separation of church and state, despite conventional wisdom to the contrary.

With 7 evangelicals on the board, and 10 Republicans, look for passing of this curriculum with all of the objectionable edits to the curriculum intact.

Bringing up today’s statement by Judy Jennings who is running in my SBOE district, District 10, to take Cynthia Dunbar’s place. I have posted her statement as found on YouTube below. Basically the theme is that Jennings promises to revisit the social studies curriculum as passed by this lame duck school board (McLeroy was voted out, and Dunbar is not running for re-election) when she takes office in January.

That is, although passed by ideologues on the school board, it isn’t a done deal.



This is eminently doable. Mainly because one of the things that the legislature is looking at in order to deal with the anticipated $11 billion shortfall in the next budget cycle is to delay textbook acquisition.

Use the old textbooks for another year (or two).

Right now the legislature is looking at making up for not buying textbooks that are aligned with the new curriculum by making software acquisitions and using supplemental materials in order to have textbooks that follow the new curriculum.

If the new curriculum is rescinded, that makes even the expenditure of those funds for updated materials a moot question.

In short, what Judy Jennings proposes not only makes sense and keeps Texas out of the national focus for politicizing its educational standards, it is also fiscally sound.

The Recession of 2007-2009 did its damage and state funds are tight. It just makes sense to delay curriculum adoption until Texas can afford to back it up with material support.

Besides, that way the Board can continue to diddle with Texas’ Permanent School Fund (also known as the textbook fund) expected to grow by another $1 billion during the next two years, without drawing down the principal.

Phillip Andrews: Taking Issue With Charlie Howard’s Sleeve

This morning I saw Phillip Andrews - the Democratic challenger in Texas HD 26, who will face Charlie Howard in the fall match up - at a local Democratic club meeting.

We talked briefly.

He asked me whether I had received his email that he sent to me awhile back on Charlie Howard’s “Religion Anti-Discrimination Bill” and I said that I did. I even wrote a piece on it almost three years ago when Howard introduced HB 3678 in the House. A bill that was then signed by Rick Perry in a high school library in Charlie Howard’s district.

Now you have to understand that Phillip Andrews is about the most mild-mannered guy this side of Clark Kent. He exudes “nice guy.” And you have to understand this as well: Andrews once thought that he wanted to become an ordained minister and actually entered the seminary but had to cut that short because of a family crisis.

So think about that while you take a look at Phillip’s campaign website, here and here.

Phillip Andrews is angered that Charlie Howard wears his religion on his sleeve and uses it to his political and financial benefit at any opportunity to promote the very big Republican Red Meat Issue of religious expression in public schools.

Phillip Andrews, once a Republican Precinct Chair, broke with the Republican Party on this issue. Rightwing Republican Evangelicals in the party, he told me, visited their religion hourly, making sure that he was indeed “saved.”

The issue of using his religion as a self-promotion tool by tearing down the wall that exists between Church and State is sure to make secular Republicans irate, he says.

No doubt.

No doubt that moderate Republicans who are sick and tired of Charlie Howard’s antics, and sick and tired of his hypocrisy will see in Phillip Andrews a golden opportunity to finally rid themselves of the disease that is Charlie Howard’s tenure in Austin.

Later on today I recalled something that Bev Carter wrote in her column at the Fort Bend Star on the occasion of Charlie Howard/Rick Perry Comedy Hour when Perry signed HB 3678 into law.

It’s worth repeating:

“…when first elected, he went around to all the land developers in Fort Bend and asked them to give him a “retainer” to represent them in Austin. One admittedly did. Maybe more, but only one would fess up. And because they were honest enough to tell me, I won’t reveal their name.”

“When I confronted Charlie about his retainer and told him I thought we ELECTED him to represent us in Austin and didn’t need additional monetary rewards to do the job he was elected to do, Charlie told me he was greedy and just couldn’t help himself. He said he prayed about it every day because he knew it was a sin.”

Charlie Howard wears his religion on his sleeve for all to see. He even uses religion in his defense when he admits to his failings and personality flaws. I find it refreshing that the flaws of this man will be a mainstream issue in the upcoming election, and that, when Andrews wins in November, HD 26 will finally have someone in Austin who represents them, and not land developers and proselytizing evangelical Christians.

The Texas SBOE’s Foray Into Revisionist History

We all knew it was coming, but the Austin American-Statesman has a rather in-depth article on recent actions of the Texas State Board of Education’s in their project to rewrite the state’s social studies curriculum.

The article is a revelation, if you will, on how the board of education, led by conservative evangelical Chair Gail Lowe, is attempting to do something that is usually anathema to conservatives, by a twisting around of the truth. By a reinterpretation of what we know about American history.

By engaging in what is known in the field as “Revisionist History.”

Firstly, why is this anathema to conservatives? Well, the analogy to revising what we know about American history is in the reinterpretation of what the founding fathers meant in their drafting of the founding documents of the federal government: the US Constitution. Conservatives are all about “strict construction,” that is, not reading more into the meaning of the constitution other than what was originally intended by those who wrote it.

So in engaging in a revisionist view of American history conservative evangelical members of the SBOE are in effect doing to history what progressive liberal Supreme Court Justices have done to the constitution in the past - much to the consternation of conservative justices.

Now, how does what the conservative evangelicals are trying to do to the social studies curriculum constitute revisionism?

First, as shown in the Statesman article, advisors who have been hired to help rewrite the curriculum have grasped two conflicting ideas and unbelievably melded them together as one doctrine.

From the American-Statesman:

“Barton and Marshall [the evangelical consultants] were among six reviewers chosen by the board to make suggestions for changing the curriculum. Their key recommendations for revision include more emphasis on documents from early America like the Mayflower Compact of 1620, written by Christian pilgrims who wanted religious freedom, or adding the Bible to sources that influenced the creation of significant documents when America was founded. If their changes are accepted, students who now receive a more generic overview of religious freedom and its importance in the country's founding would be taught that the nation's founders wanted to shape America based on biblical principles.”

So let me get this straight. What we have here is some cherry picking on the part of these two consultants to bring about a reintroduction of Christian religious doctrine in the public school curriculum.

Yes, the Mayflower Compact, the governing document of the Plymouth Colony, established a government in Plymouth, and the compact is purported to have been made “for the Glory of God and advancement of the Christian Faith and Honour of our King and Country,” the actual reason it was drawn up was to cover a change in plans.

The pilgrims, it turns out, were originally supposed to land and settle at the mouth of the Hudson River, in lands owned by the Virginia Company. A change in plan caused them to settle further north, in Massachusetts. This, we now know, caused several of the settlers, not of the Puritan faith, to claim that they were free to act independently from the Puritans. The Mayflower Compact nixed that plan.

But now we are to accept the surficial notion that the government was established to further Christianity.

Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, if your average run-of-the-mill Puritan were asked whether they were establishing a government-sponsored religion, their form of that religion no less, they would have recoiled in revolt. If anything, Puritans were all about escape from religious persecution.

That’s why they emigrated to America.

That the founding founders, the framers of the constitution were also Christians who wished to establish a Christian nation is also laughable.

Most of the Founding Fathers were non-Christians and were known as Deists. Indeed Thomas Jefferson is famously cited as having written, later in life in a letter to letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, these words:

“Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.”

But now we are being made to believe, by these two Christian revisionists of American history, that not only did the pilgrims intend a Christian government (when they were escaping a government that was trying to impose a religion upon them), but so were the Founding Fathers, when that was the last thing on their minds.

All of this in the guise of establishing a specific religious creed on Americans who are of ever-expanding diverse backgrounds. In a school system supported by taxpayer dollars.

All I have to wonder is this then. If the SBOE and its neoconservative evangelical members get their way and succeed in establishment of Christianity as the required religion in Texas, what is next?

Neo-inquisition?

Bible Study in Texas Public Schools: A Minefield

Wait. Bible study in public schools? Seriously? This is a serious as a heart attack. Bible study in public schools was enabled over two years ago by passage of HB 1287 authored by State Rep Wayne Chisum (R-Wackjob) passed in the state house on May 9^th 2007 and passed in the Senate two weeks later.

I wrote some things about it a month before it passed, predicting chaos and confusion should it pass.

And boy was I not wrong.

Texas school districts that have jumped at the chance to bring this thing off are now looking at offering a course on religion as they would look at a leper. With dread.

From the Austin American-Statesman:

“Legislators had built safeguards into the law that were meant to ensure the class on the Bible's impact on history and literature of Western civilization would be taught in an ‘objective, academic manner that neither promotes nor disparages religion,’ and not ‘from a particular sectarian point of view,’ according to the law.”

“Those protections included mandated teacher training, state-approved training materials and curriculum standards deemed constitutional by the state attorney general.”

“The Texas Education Agency told school districts that it would not provide the training and materials because the Legislature did not budget the $750,000 to do so.”

Of course they didn’t. After all, what’s better saying that you pass such a law in your state legislature or actually offering the class with all of the legal headaches that it will surely bring no matter how many safeguards are built into the process?

Nope. This one is a no-brainer. Not only is this whole thing a minefield, but it seems only the blind will be inclined to pick their way through it.