Supreme Court hears arguments in Hobby Lobby case for corporation's religious rights

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc, where Hobby Lobby is challenging the Affordable Care Act's insurance coverage for birth control is violating the religious beliefs of the owners of Hobby Lobby, and that the company should be exempt from this birth control requirement.  This is from CBS News.com:

Two privately-held, for-profit companies -- Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. -- are suing the United States government over a provision in the Affordable Care Act that requires large employers to offer their workers comprehensive health coverage, including contraception, or pay a fine. Hobby Lobby's owners, David and Barbara Green of Oklahoma, say they have strong objections based in their Christian faith to providing health care coverage for certain types of contraception. The Pennsylvania-based Hahn family, the Mennonite owners of Conestoga Wood Specialties, have the same complaint.

For Christian conservatives, the cases represent the threat of government overreach.

"This case will decide whether a family gives up their religious freedom when they open a family business," Lori Windham, a senior counsel for the Becket Fund, which is representing Hobby Lobby, told CBS News. "The question here is whether the Green family can be forced to do something that violates their deeply held religious conviction as a consequence of the new health care law."

Reproductive rights advocates, meanwhile, consider the notion that some businesses could pick and choose which contraception methods to cover "out of touch [and] out of line," Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro Choice America, told reporters.

Contraception is "integral with our economic security and our ability to hold jobs for our lifetime," Hogue said. "We've had enough of this idea our reproductive health is somehow separate from our economic well being... Our bodies are not our bosses' business."

The two cases, however, have implications that go well beyond the so-called "wars" on women or religion. If Hobby Lobby and Conestoga prevail, it would prompt "a fundamental shift in the understanding of the First Amendment," David Gans, the civil rights director for the Constitutional Accountability Center, told CBS News.

That shift in thinking could open the floodgates for unprecedented protections for corporations that some say amount to a license to discriminate. The ramifications could be felt nationwide, in states that are enacting laws to shield businesses from regulations that may violate their "religious beliefs." Gov. Jan Brewer, R-Ariz., last month vetoed one such bill, which would have allowed Arizona businesses to refuse to serve gays on religious grounds. A number of other states across the country have been considering similar legislation.

The ramifications could theoretically go further than that. U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli argued in a brief to the court that siding with Hobby Lobby "would entitle commercial employers with religious objections to opt out of virtually every statute protecting their employees" -- such as laws that ban gender discrimination, minimum wage and overtime laws, the collection of Social Security taxes, or mandated health coverage for vaccinations.

This case certainly worries me.  The big question I would have to ask is, who defines a corporation's religious belief?  Hobby Lobby is a privately held company,  so I can see the Green family's religious argument against providing birth control.  But who defines a publicly-held corporation's religious belief?  The CEO?  The Board of Directors?  The shareholders?  Will such religious beliefs have to be placed up for a shareholder vote on the next shareholder meeting?  How does such religious beliefs in God, Satan, Original Sin, birth control, relate towards selling of shoes by Nike Corporation?  Wait--Jesus Christ wore shoes.  How does religious beliefs relate towards the selling of  iPhones and iPads by Apple Computer Corporation?

There have been a lot of arguments that I've read criticizing Hobby Lobby, and their arguments for corporate religious beliefs--Talking Points Memo, Huffington Post, Daily Kos has multiple postings on their site, and Americablog has four postings.  What worries me is that if the Supremes rule in favor of Hobby Lobby, then we may see that floodgate of corporate protections on taxes, discrimination, exemption on regulations on everything--all based on religious beliefs.  Corporations only believe in one God--and that is the God of Money!  They will say anything and do anything they can to accumulate even more of their God. 

And one more thing, the Supreme Court will rule 5-4 in favor of Hobby Lobby, with Justice Kennedy being the swing vote.  Because corporations are people too, my friend.

Rick Perry: America undergoing "spiritual warfare"

I found this Right Wing Watch story via the Washington Monthly:

Texas governor Rick Perry spoke today on a conference call with extremist pastor Rick Scarborough as part of his “40 Days to Save America” campaign to motivate and organize Religious Right voters. Perry said that the separation of church and state, which he dismissed as a myth, is being used to drive “people of faith from the public arena.” Perry said that he believes Satan is using the “untruth” of the separation of church and state to remove Christians from public life: “The idea that we should be sent to the sidelines I would suggest to you is very driven by those who are not truthful, Satan runs across the world with his doubt and with his untruths and what have you and one of the untruths out there is driven—is that people of faith should not be involved in the public arena.”

 Perry said that America is undergoing “spiritual warfare” and Religious Right activists who “truly are Christian warriors, Christian soldiers” need to stand up to “activist courts” and “President Obama and his cronies” whom he said are making “efforts to remove any trace of religion from American life.” He called on listeners to use such spiritual warfare against the “growing tide of secularism and atheism” that “preach[es] tolerance and diversity while they engage in oppression and bullying tactics.”

So let me get this straight.  Satan is using the separation of church and state to remove Christians from government and public life, in a spiritual warfare, and that Christians need to stand up to both "activist courts,"  and the evil socialist, Marxist, black, Kenyan-born, Muslim President Obama?  Did I get that right?  I did not see any recruiting posters for Christian warriors at my church.  What churches are Perry and Scarborough selling this nonsense to?

Of course, I am not surprised that both the Religious Right, and right-wing politicians are pushing this madness as a means to turn out the Fundamentalist foot-soldiers to the voting booth.  I have a friend who listens to Christian radio, and she hears this nonsense all the time at how an Obama re-election will destroy this country, Christians will be persecuted, and Satan will probably win.  With the Romney campaign floundering, I'm sure the Religious Right hate talk will increase multiple times to generate more fear and anger, to recruit more "Christian warriors" to stop all the atheists, agnostics, non-religious people, liberals, Democrats, elitists, and President Obama from handing America to Satan on a sliver platter.

Florida church plans book burning of Quran

I found this story through Americablog, and I'm just amazed. From CNN.Com:

(CNN) -- In protest of what it calls a religion "of the devil," a nondenominational church in Gainesville, Florida, plans to host an "International Burn a Quran Day" on the ninth anniversary of the September 11, 2001, attacks.

The Dove World Outreach Center says it is hosting the event to remember 9/11 victims and take a stand against Islam. With promotions on its website and Facebook page, it invites Christians to burn the Muslim holy book at the church from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m.

"We believe that Islam is of the devil, that it's causing billions of people to go to hell, it is a deceptive religion, it is a violent religion and that is proven many, many times," Pastor Terry Jones told CNN's Rick Sanchez earlier this week.

Jones wrote a book titled "Islam is of the Devil," and the church sells coffee mugs and shirts featuring the phrase.

Muslims and many other Christians -- including some evangelicals -- are fighting the initiative.

The church launched a YouTube channel to disseminate its messages.

"I mean ask yourself, have you ever really seen a really happy Muslim? As they're on the way to Mecca? As they gather together in the mosque on the floor? Does it look like a real religion of joy?" Jones asks in one of his YouTube posts.

"No, to me it looks like a religion of the devil."

I'll be honest, when I think of book burnings, these guys were the real pros:



Does this idiot Pastor Terry Jones really want to walk down this destructive path?

Is the Religious Right entering into a leadership vacuum?

I found this Washington Monthly post rather interesting, so I went to the original source story at The Washington Times:

The long-expected resignation of Focus on the Family's James Dobson highlights an open secret among America's roughly 70 million evangelicals: There are no obvious successors to the group of evangelical leaders who created massive organizations or built up media empires in the 1980s and '90s.

Mr. Dobson, 72, who resigned last week as board chairman of one of the country's most influential evangelical organizations, is one of the last of a great generation of evangelical leaders.

Some have died: the Rev. Jerry Falwell, Moral Majority founder; theologian Carl F.H. Henry; Florida pastor D. James Kennedy; Campus Crusade for Christ founder Bill Bright; and Christian philosopher Francis Schaeffer, who founded L'Abri Fellowship.

Others have either retired or have passed on the bulk of their duties, such as the Rev. Billy Graham, 90; televangelist Pat Robertson, 78; author and activist Tim LaHaye, 83; and Prison Fellowship founder Chuck Colson, 77.

"It's a changing of the guard," said Brian McLaren, 52, cited in 2005 by Time magazine as one of the 25 most influential evangelicals in America.

"There is a possibility the religious right will collapse on itself. Or someone will articulate a new religious center. The evangelical community has been slowly diversifying, and there may not be a center anymore."

For the past 30 years, the Religious Right was able project enormous political power with a combination of presenting a social agenda into the political debate in terms that was favorable to the Religious Right--abortion, gay marriage, intelligent design, and such. The Religious Right also demanded a litmus test concerning those same social issues to also be placed on political officials--either Republicans had to pass the Religious Right's litmus test in order to be elected, or appointed, into office positions. Of course, Democrats would always fail the Religious Right's litmus tests--especially on abortion. This political power came about because individuals like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson were able to combine the energy of their foot soldiers with the religious ideology to exert a strong influence within the Republican Party. They got it right on how to mix religion with political power.

That power is now starting to diffuse. First, the old guard of the Religious Right is dying off, with no new replacements to fill the vacuum left behind. Second is that I think that the social issues that have so galvanized the Religious Right are starting to fade in the political debate. The issues of abortion and gay marriage are meaningless in a political debate when Americans are losing jobs and health care. The U.S. economy and the financial crisis were the big issues last November, although gay marriage was a major statewide issue in California with Proposition 8. These social issues can still come back. But for the moment, it is the U.S. economy that is the important issue. Third is this interesting analysis from The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen:

Younger evangelicals are generally less inclined to read from the religious right's hymnal, and anti-gay animus is losing its salience. There's a growing movement among evangelicals to reclaim the mantle and expand the definition of "moral issues" to include things like poverty and global warming.

Younger evangelicals may just be willing to look at such "moral issues," seeking out solutions to poverty and global warming. If this is the case, then what we could be seeing is a diversification of the evangelical movement, as their members seek out their own "moral issues" and causes--be it abortion or global warming. So not only does the Religious Right have a leadership problem, but the movement may also fracture between competing groups. And, of course, all of this is taking place just as the Republican Party is having problems finding their own political voice as they have become a wounded, minority party. A part of the Religious Right will certainly have a serious political influence within the Republican Party. But now we have a leaderless Religious Right movement exerting political influence with a disarrayed Republican Party.

In other words, the blind leading the blind.

Pastor advocates more sex for married couples

This is from The New York Times:

GRAPEVINE, Tex. — And on the seventh day, there was no rest for married couples. A week after the Rev. Ed Young challenged husbands and wives among his flock of 20,000 to strengthen their unions through Seven Days of Sex, his advice was — keep it going.

Mr. Young, an author, a television host and the pastor of the evangelical Fellowship Church, issued his call for a week of “congregational copulation” among married couples on Nov. 16, while pacing in front of a large bed. Sometimes he reclined on the paisley coverlet while flipping through a Bible, emphasizing his point that it is time for the church to put God back in the bed.

“Today we’re beginning this sexperiment, seven days of sex,” he said, with his characteristic mix of humor, showmanship and Scripture. “How to move from whining about the economy to whoopee!”

On Sunday parishioners at the Grapevine branch watched a prerecorded sermon from Mr. Young and his wife, Lisa, on jumbo screens over a candlelit stage. “I know there’s been a lot of love going around this week, among the married couples,” one of the church musicians said, strumming on a guitar before a crowd of about 3,000.

Mrs. Young, dressed in knee-high black boots and jeans, said that after a week of having sex every day, or close to it, “some of us are smiling.” For others grappling with infidelities, addictions to pornography or other bitter hurts, “there’s been some pain; hopefully there’s been some forgiveness, too.”

Mr. Young advised the couples to “keep on doing what you’ve been doing this week. We should try to double up the amount of intimacy we have in marriage. And when I say intimacy, I don’t mean holding hands in the park or a back rub.”

Only married couples are suppose to have sex seven days a week? What about the single people, or the unmarried couples?

Then again, maybe the world will become a better place if more people are doing it seven days a week.

Christian evangelicals finally uniting behind McCain

I found this interesting story in Time's Swampland:

At a meeting Tuesday in Denver, about 100 conservative Christian leaders from around the country agreed to unite behind the candidacy of John McCain, a politician they have long distrusted, marking the latest in a string of movements that bode well for McCain's general election prospects among the Republican base.

"Collectively we feel that he will support and advance those moral values that we hold much greater than Obama, who in our view will decimate moral values," said Mat Staver, the chairman of Liberty Counsel, a legal advocacy group, who previously supported Mike Huckabee's candidacy.

"There are people who came through the primary with very mixed emotions of the candidate," Staver continued, noting that many in the group had been in Denver to attend a separate meeting for pastors. "This event was to put those aside."

The group included leaders like Phyllis Schlafly, the long-time leader of Eagle Forum; Steve Strang, the publisher of Charisma magazine; Phil Burress, a prominent Ohio marriage and anti-pornography activist; David Barton, the founder of WallBuilders and Donald Hodel, a former secretary of the Interior, who previously served on the board of Focus on the Family. Jim Dobson, the head of Focus and an outspoken critic of McCain, did not attend. The McCain campaign was also not directly represented at the meeting.

A second person who attended the event, but asked not to be named, said that the group was motivated principally by a desire to defeat Barack Obama. "None of these people want to meet their maker knowing that they didn't do everything they could to keep Barack Obama from being president," the participant said. "You've got these two people running for president. One of them is going to become president. That's the perspective. That that's the whole discussion."

I seriously wonder if the right-wing evangelical leaders are starting to worry about the Obama campaign's courting their own evangelical members. According to this July 1, 2008 New York Times article, titled Obama Courting Evangelicals Once Loyal to Bush:

WASHINGTON — Politically speaking, Susan Speakman is a different kind of evangelical.

Mrs. Speakman, 59, a pastor and educator at Bethany Presbyterian Church in Bridgeville, Pa., an activist evangelical church southwest of Pittsburgh, backs Senator Barack Obama in the presidential race. Along with her 23-year-old son, Stephen, she supports Mr. Obama because of his stands on the Iraq war and matters of social justice. The two of them plan to spread the word in their community and beyond.

“What caught my attention early on was his comment that we don’t want red states and blue states, but we want to find reconciliation and rapprochement with folks,” said Mrs. Speakman, who changed her party affiliation to Democratic from Republican this year to vote for Mr. Obama in the Pennsylvania primary. “I really object to the other approach — divide and conquer, isolate and demonize the opposition. I try to engage the other side and try to find ways we can bring the values of the kingdom of God into the experience of humanity.”

Mrs. Speakman is one of thousands of evangelical Christians and so-called faith voters whom the Obama campaign is recruiting in a major effort to connect with a part of the electorate that accounts for an estimated quarter of the voting population and helped elect George W. Bush president twice.

Mr. Obama and his advisers are seeking support not only among relatively moderate evangelicals like Mrs. Speakman, who voted for Mr. Bush in 2000 but backed Senator John Kerry, a Democrat, in 2004 because of her opposition to the war. They are also trying to take advantage of signs that some conservative Christians are rethinking their politics, urged along by a new generation of leadership and intensified concern about issues including climate change, genocide, AIDS and poverty.

Between now and November, the Obama forces are planning as many as 1,000 house parties and dozens of Christian rock concerts, gatherings of religious leaders, campus visits and telephone conference calls to bring together voters of all ages motivated by their faith to engage in politics. It is the most intensive effort yet by a Democratic candidate to reach out to self-identified evangelical or born-again Christians and to try to pry them away from their historical attachment to the Republican Party.

The hard-core conservative evangelicals will certainly never vote for Obama in November. But a segment of moderate evangelicals that opposes President Bush's war in Iraq, and perhaps disapproves of Bush's job performance are certainly a segment for the Obama campaign to court votes on. According to the NY Times story, the Obama campaign is trying to court just enough evangelical votes in the key battleground states who are disillusioned over the Bush war in Iraq, global warming, or the economy. These are the evangelicals who supported President Bush in these battleground states by substantial margins in the 2000 and 2004 elections. What is even more interesting is that the Obama campaign may be targeting these evangelicals over the pocketbook and foreign policy issues of poverty, unemployment, inequality, the environment, and the Iraq war, rather than the standard social issues of gay rights, abortion, marriage, flag burning, school prayer, or intelligent design that have been the standard hot-button issues the Republican Party trots out for soliciting the evangelical vote. And some moderate evangelicals are listening to the Obama campaign pitch.

While over on the McCain campaign, evangelicals have been somewhat cool over Republican candidate John McCain's pitch to the movement. Focus on the Family's James Dobson has refused to support, or vote for, McCain. Evangelicals have remained wary of John McCain, even as the McCain campaign continually courts their votes. There have also been problems with the McCain endorsements of both prominent evangelical leaders, Reverends John Hagee and Rod Parsley, once controversial statements from both pastors came to light, forcing McCain to reject both endorsements. So there is a love/hate relationship between John McCain and the evangelicals. The evangelicals do not see McCain as one of their own, and John McCain's only interest in the evangelicals is pandering for their votes. And yet both McCain and the evangelicals need each other in this shotgun wedding for 2008. Hence, this sudden rally-around-the-McCain-campaign-boys meeting by these top evangelical leaders, even as both McCain and the evangelicals may not like each other. But now suddenly, they must tolerate each other.

Finally, there is this one interesting quote from the NY Times article by the one unnamed individual attending the event:

"None of these people want to meet their maker knowing that they didn't do everything they could to keep Barack Obama from being president," the participant said. "You've got these two people running for president. One of them is going to become president. That's the perspective. That that's the whole discussion."

You want to talk about crazy, this quote just shows how insane some of these evangelical leaders can be. So if these evangelical leaders fail to do everything they can in stopping Barack Obama from becoming president, then God will send them to Hell? So now the insane evangelical leaders are embarking on this religious crusade for opposing Obama by rallying around McCain--can't allow this latest Antichrist Democrat to be elected president.

Republican denied communion for supporting Obama

If there is ever a reason why religion should stay out of politics, this example clearly defines it. From The Washington Post:

Word spread like wildfire in Catholic circles: Douglas Kmiec, a staunch Republican, firm foe of abortion and veteran of the Reagan Justice Department, had been denied Communion.

His sin? Kmiec, a Catholic who can cite papal pronouncements with the facility of a theological scholar, shocked old friends and adversaries alike earlier this year by endorsing Barack Obama for president. For at least one priest, Kmiec's support for a pro-choice politician made him a willing participant in a grave moral evil.

Kmiec was denied Communion in April at a Mass for a group of Catholic business people he later addressed at dinner. The episode has not received wide attention outside the Catholic world, but it is the opening shot in an argument that could have a large impact on this year's presidential campaign: Is it legitimate for bishops and priests to deny Communion to those supporting candidates who favor abortion rights?

This is a disturbing question to enter into because the Church is using its power to deny religious services to individuals simply on the matter of political views. This issue was already brought out in 2004, when the Catholic Church was questioning whether to deny Communion to Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry because of Kerry's pro-choice positions. If you thought 2004 was bad, the issue with Kmiec is even worst:

The Kmiec incident poses the question in an extreme form: He is not a public official but a voter expressing a preference. Moreover, Kmiec -- a law professor at Pepperdine University and once dean of Catholic University's law school -- is a long-standing critic of the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision.

Kmiec, who was head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel in the late 1980s, is supporting Obama despite the candidate's position on abortion, not because of it, partly in the hope that Obama's emphasis on personal responsibility in sexual matters might change the nature of the nation's argument on life issues.

This is just outrageous! The Catholic Church denied Kmiec Communion because Kmiec expressed a preference of one political candidate that the Catholic Church opposes! This is not a public official running for office, but a voter expressing a preference! And the Catholic Church has denied Kmiec religious services on the basis of Kmiec's voting preference. Is this the new prerequisites for applying to a church--not only must you vote for the church's political ideology, but the church can now punish you if your voter preferences are out of line with the church?

I can accept churches providing spiritual guidance, moral advice, or even giving the Word of God to their followers--regardless of whatever denomination they are. But when a religious organization--a church--demands that its members must vote according to a particular political platform, or threatens punishment upon its members for considering views that the church opposes, then I don't consider such a church as a religious organization--it has become a political organization expressing a political ideology, or particular political candidates. It should be treated as a political organization--especially with the removal of their religious tax-exempt status.

I'm starting to wonder if this is another test case to see just how far the Catholic Church can force their members to vote according to the Church's political positions. Because the Catholic Church has made this threat before:

Archbishop Joseph F. Naumann of Kansas City has played an indirect role in the 2008 campaign by calling on Kathleen Sebelius, the popular Democratic governor of Kansas who has been mentioned as a possible Obama running mate, to stop taking Communion because of her "actions in support of legalized abortion."

But because Kmiec is a private citizen and has such a long history of embracing Catholic teaching on abortion, denying him Communion for political reasons may spark an even greater outcry inside the church.

Kmiec says he is grateful because the episode reminded him of the importance of the Eucharist in his spiritual life, and because he hopes it will alert others to the dangers of "using Communion as a weapon."

The Catholic Church needs to be stopped from engaging in this atrocious behavior.

McCain's "spiritual guide" calls for destruction of Islam

I guess it is no big secret that Arizona Senator John McCain has sought out the Religious Right's support for his GOP presidential bid. However, it really gets interesting when you see just how insane some of these religious leaders are that McCain is pandering to. Take Reverend Rod Parsley for example. Mother Jones has a short YouTube video showing McCain praising Parsley as his "spiritual guide," even as Parsley has called for Christians to "destroy Islam." From YouTube:



What I find rather ironic here is how McCain criticized Democratic Senator Barack Obama over the remarks made by Jeremiah Wright without taking into account his own relationships with both Parsley and John Hagee. McCain sought out Hagee's endorsement, even as Hagee claimed that Hurricane Katrina was God's punishment for a gay right's parade in New Orleans. McCain attempted to distance himself from Hagee's comments, before half-heartily admitting that seeking out Hagee's endorsement was a mistake. And even though McCain admits his error of seeking Hagee's endorsement, McCain is still "glad to have his [Hagee's] endorsement." Obama had to denounce Wright's controversial statements.

Do you see the hypocrisy here? It is a controversy against the Democrats if liberal religious leaders make insane statements, but it is okay for the GOP if conservative religious leaders make their own insane statements. What is worst is that Obama had to deal with the political fallout of a single religious leader's statements, while McCain is happily getting endorsements from two insane religious leaders. And these are leaders who are calling for death and destruction of people who do not conform to their extremist, religious views--be it gays, Muslims, atheists, liberals, or anyone else that will not send money to their over-bloated religious-themed, corporate empires. It is disgusting.

And now McCain is calling Parsley his "spiritual guide," even as Parsley is calling for the destruction of Islam. The pandering that McCain gives to these right-wing nutjobs is just amazing. And John McCain doesn't care because this is the only way to buy the vote of the religious conservative wing of the Republican Party. This really shows just the extent of the Religious Right's influence and control of the Republican Party, and how the GOP presidential candidate John McCain needs to pander to their every wish.

Do you really want these nutjobs in control of the White House for another four to eight years?

One more little note, I found another YouTube video clip of Parsley's greatest hits on the unhinged statements scene through The Carpetbagger Report. From YouTube:



The madness continues.

Pat Robertson endorsed Giuliani for president

This is just incredible. From The New York Times:

Rudolph W. Giuliani scored a big coup today by winning the support of Pat Robertson, who, as one of the nation’s best-known televangelists, could help Mr. Giuliani reassure Republican voters who have been wary of his support for abortion rights.

Mr. Robertson, the founder and chairman of the Christian Broadcasting Network, said in endorsing Mr. Giuliani in Washington, that he believes “the overriding issue before the American people is the defense of our population from the blood lust of Islamic terrorists” and praised Mr. Giuliani as a “true fiscal conservative.”

While Mr. Robertson did not mention Mr. Giuliani’s support of abortion rights, he said approvingly that Mr. Giuliani has “has assured the American people that his choices for judicial appointments will be men and women who share the judicial philosophy of John Roberts and Antonin Scalia,” who have argued against Roe v. Wade.

The endorsement comes just a month after a coalition of other prominent Christian conservatives threatened to back a third-party candidate if Mr. Giuliani were to become the Republican Party’s presidential nominee. Winning the support of Mr. Roberston could not only help Mr. Giuliani present himself as a viable candidate to the Christian right, but could also help him improve his standing in Iowa: Mr. Roberston finished second in the Iowa caucuses during his own run for president in 1988.

Now that "other prominent Christian conservatives" was none other than James Dobson and his Focus on the Family coalition. Dobson doesn't like Giuliani's campaign for two possible reasons. The first, of course, would be Giuliani's pro-abortion stance before he decided to run for president. The second reason could be that a Giuliani presidency could reduce Dobson's political power to shape social issues to his extremist ideology. Dobson may feel that a Giuliani administration may only give lip service to the Religious Right, rather than trying to push through the socially conservative legislation that Dobson supports. So we get all this talk from Dobson about bolting from the GOP if Giuliani is nominated for the GOP presidential candidacy.

Enter Pat Robertson. Robertson is the wackiest of the wackos on the Religious Right. And yet, here is Pat Robertson endorsing Rudy Giuliani for the GOP presidential candidate. Are we going to see a split in the Religious Right's vote now, with one part of the Religious Right electorate supporting Dobson's third party candidate, and the other part supporting Robertson and Giuliani? It is like we're seeing a complete breakdown in the Religious Right as to who to select among a set of bad candidates that really don't support their extreme religiously social agenda--and this is after they have had one of their own occupying the White House in George W. Bush.

This is getting to be fun.

The Christmas Defense Kit--A perfect gift for the War on Christmas!

I found this story through ThinkProgress, and I'll admit that I'm dumbfounded. I know that the War on Christmas has been raging within the delusional minds of Fox commentators Bill O'Reilly, John Gibson, and even Michelle Malkin. But I never expected that you could get a Christmas Defense Kit to prepare you for that good fight in the War on Christmas.

Yes, you heard me--a Christmas Defense Kit! What is a Christmas Defense Kit? Let's go to the World Net Daily News online store, which is selling these Christmas Defense Kits like...well...holiday fruitcakes?

It's coming!

You know it's coming.

Like clockwork, the American Civil Liberties Union grinches will be out in force punishing those erecting Nativity displays, extending Christmas greetings and otherwise exercising their God-given, First Amendment-protected rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

But now you can fight back – and you don't need a lawyer to do it.

Just check out WND's online store for your personal "Christmas-defense kit." What you'll find are three choices of bumper stickers:

* "This is America! And I'm going to say it: 'Merry Christmas!'"

* "It is STILL a wonderful life – Merry Christmas!"

* "Merry Christmas! An American Tradition"

They're all magnetized for seasonal use. Buy them separately or all together. Use them this year, next year and for many years to come.

In addition, there's the "Reason for the Season Auto Magnets," also perfect for your refrigerator or office file cabinet or desk. Part of every purchase goes to Christian charities.

It's the perfect way to make your statement this Christmas – that Jesus is the reason for the season. Buy one, buy 25, buy 50!

There's one more component of your Christmas-defense kit: It's the "Operation: Just Say 'Merry Christmas' Bracelet." They make great stocking stuffers, but why wait! Make your feelings about Christmas known to one and all. Wear them to pick up the kids, when you buy groceries and when you go to work. They're guaranteed to ward off the evil spirits of the ACLU grinches.

Get your order in now, because Christmas will be upon you before you know it.

And, if you think it's just too early to worry about the anti-Christmas onslaught, go on the offensive now and proclaim the true meaning of Thanksgiving. After all, it's not really about pilgrims and turkeys -- it's about thanking God for all the blessings in our lives.

Check out WND's "Christmas-defense kit" now.

I went on to World Net Daily's store, and downloaded the pictures of the magnetic bumper stickers and the bracelet. You can pick up a 3-pack of the magnetic bumper stickers for $14.95, or a single bumper sticker for $5.95 each:

War on Christmas 3-Pack Magnetic Bumper Stickers.

The War on Christmas bracelet can be yours for only $2.00 each:

The War on Christmas Bracelet.

And if you're so anxious to become a Christian foot soldier in the War on Christmas, but can't wait until December, well, the World Net Daily store also has the War on Thanksgiving magnetic bumper sticker for only $5.95:

The War on Thanksgiving Magnetic Bumper Sticker.

And even more, according to the World Net Daily website:

"This is just about the nicest bumper sticker I've ever seen." - Joseph Farah

This Thanksgiving season (and every Thanksgiving season from now on), remind the world of what this distinctively American holiday is all about, with this beautiful magnetic bumper sticker.

It says, "Remember to thank Him. Happy Thanksgiving."

I'm trying to think of some type of comment or analysis on this, but I can't. There is this level of absurdity here that is just incredible. Who buys this stuff? Who is so angry enough that they are willing to make a political statement about Christmas?

Then there are those who are profiting in this War on Christmas. The people who created this merchandise at World Net Daily really have two agendas here. The first, obviously, is to continue this political deception of screaming how Christmas is being destroyed by liberals--a deception that meant to create a sense of victimization in order to maintain political power and control of hard-lined conservatives and the Religious Right by the conservative elite. It is about maintaining GOP political power and control of the Religious Right vote. The second agenda is to economically profit from the Religious Right. Here we have all these wonderful symbols to show your support for the War on Christmas--all for a price. The marketing strategy is brilliant--the evil liberals are going to destroy Christmas! Buy this bumper sticker in order to stop the evil liberals from destroying Christmas! I'm sure that there are plenty of World Net Daily readers who are getting sucked into this scam, and have parted their Christmas dollars for this junk. The funny thing is that there really is a War on Christmas--a war that is being won by marketers, toy manufacturers, and Big Business constantly demanding that the American consumer spend even more money, shopping earlier, for Christmas gifts. It is not the evil liberals that are destroying the meaning of Christmas, but rather Big Business' desire to commercialize Christmas. Then again, I doubt that the Fox News War on Christmas foot soldiers could ever understand that lesson.

Republicans "out-conservative" each other

This is off Reuters News:

NEW YORK (Reuters) - It's not enough for U.S. Republican presidential candidates to be conservatives. They've got to be bigger and better conservatives to win the hearts of right-wing America.

As Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson and John McCain fight for votes, some of the hardest punches are from those accusing one another of being newcomers to lower taxes or opposing abortion.

"The Republicans have had to 'out-conservative' each other," said Lee Miringoff, pollster at the Marist Institute for Public Opinion in Poughkeepsie, New York.

That contest heats up this week, when several candidates seeking the Republican Party's nomination in the November 2008 presidential election visit with conservative Christians at a "Values Voter Summit" in Washington.

But just being conservative isn't enough, said Doug Muzzio, professor of political affairs at New York's Baruch College. "It's how conservative are you, and how long have you been conservative?"

Appealing to the right is always a vital strategy for candidates seeking the Republican nomination, but the battle over conservative credentials is particularly sharp in this campaign because several of the top candidates have distinctly liberal-leaning records.

What is interesting about this story is that we have the top GOP presidential candidates doing everything they can to convince the base that they are more conservative than the others. It is a seriously blatant, pandering towards the hard-lined and Religious Right voters that the candidates are currently engaged in, regardless of how moderate, or liberal, their political and ideological records were in the past. The problem here starts when the GOP candidate is actually nominated, he is going to have to explain, to the moderates and independents, the hard-lined campaign promises and statements that nominee originally made to the base and Religious Right. How do you reconcile the two opposing political viewpoints between the hard-liners and the moderate/independents? And the more that these GOP candidates attempt to "out-conservative" each other, the harder it is to shift their political positions to the center for the general election.

Fundi Christians sending religious "freedom packages" to Iraq

This was in The Los Angeles Times:

Maybe what the war in Iraq needs is not more troops but more religion. At least that's the message the Department of Defense seems to be sending.

Last week, after an investigation spurred by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, the Pentagon abruptly announced that it would not be delivering "freedom packages" to our soldiers in Iraq, as it had originally intended.

What were the packages to contain? Not body armor or home-baked cookies. Rather, they held Bibles, proselytizing material in English and Arabic and the apocalyptic computer game "Left Behind: Eternal Forces" (derived from the series of post-Rapture novels), in which "soldiers for Christ" hunt down enemies who look suspiciously like U.N. peacekeepers.

The packages were put together by a fundamentalist Christian ministry called Operation Straight Up, or OSU. Headed by former kickboxer Jonathan Spinks, OSU is an official member of the Defense Department's "America Supports You" program. The group has staged a number of Christian-themed shows at military bases, featuring athletes, strongmen and actor-turned-evangelist Stephen Baldwin. But thanks in part to the support of the Pentagon, Operation Straight Up has now begun focusing on Iraq, where, according to its website (on pages taken down last week), it planned an entertainment tour called the "Military Crusade."

Apparently the wonks at the Pentagon forgot that Muslims tend to bristle at the word "crusade" and thought that what the Iraq war lacked was a dose of end-times theology.

In the end, the Defense Department realized the folly of participating in any Operation Straight Up crusade. But the episode is just another example of increasingly disturbing, and indeed unconstitutional, relationships being forged between the U.S. military and private evangelical groups.

The LA Times article continues on, showing several more examples of this disturbing relationship between the Pentagon and these Christian fundamentalist groups. But there is an underlying danger here. This Bush administration has incorporated Christian fundamentalism within government policy, to the point of where the fundamentalists are shaping policy according to their religious views. We can see this type of religious extremism is imposed on such policies as abortion, gay rights, welfare, evolution, science, and now the military. It is almost like President Bush wants to have a civilizational clash with the Muslim world. And militant Islamics, such as Osama bin Laden are happy to oblige.

Christian fundamentalists disrupt Senate's first Hindu prayer

There are times when the Religious Right and their Christian fundamentalist wackos really piss me off. Just watch this YouTube video here:



Don't you just love the Christian fundamentalist wackos here? According to this CBS News story:

A Hindu clergyman made history Thursday by offering the U.S. Senate's morning prayer, but only after police officers removed three shouting protesters from the visitors' gallery.

Rajan Zed, director of interfaith relations at a Hindu temple, gave the brief prayer that opens each day's Senate session. As he stood at the chamber's podium in a bright orange and burgundy robe, two women and a man began shouting "this is an abomination" and other complaints from the gallery.

Police officers quickly arrested them and charged them with disrupting Congress, a misdemeanor. The male protester told an Associated Press reporter, "we are Christians and patriots" before police handcuffed them and led them away.

For several days, the Mississippi-based American Family Association has urged its members to object to the prayer because Zed would be "seeking the invocation of a non-monotheistic god."

Zed, the first Hindu to offer the Senate prayer, began: "We meditate on the transcendental glory of the Deity Supreme, who is inside the heart of the Earth, inside the life of the sky and inside the soul of the heaven. May He stimulate and illuminate our minds."

As the Senate prepared for another day of debate over the Iraq war, Zed closed with, "Peace, peace, peace be unto all."

Zed, who was born in India, was invited by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat. Speaking in the chamber shortly after the prayer, Reid defended the choice and linked it to the war debate.

"If people have any misunderstanding about Indians and Hindus," Reid said, "all they have to do is think of Gandhi," a man "who gave his life for peace."

"I think it speaks well of our country that someone representing the faith of about a billion people comes here and can speak in communication with our heavenly Father regarding peace," said Reid, a Mormon and sharp critic of President Bush's Iraq policies.

Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said the protest "shows the intolerance of many religious right activists. They say they want more religion in the public square, but it's clear they mean only their religion."

Police identified the protesters as Ante Nedlko Pavkovic, Katherine Lynn Pavkovic and Christan Renee Sugar. Their ages and hometowns were not available.

This is just completely stupid and outrageous on the fundi wackos part. This country was founded on the belief of religious freedom, where the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights asserts that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Now I'm not too thrilled that the U.S. Senate opens their sessions with a prayer, but the Senate has been engaging in this tradition since 1789. I'd rather the Senate did not engage in such a tradition, but I doubt there is anything I could do to stop U.S. senators from creating their own little quirky traditions. But still, I'm pleasantly surprised that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid invited a Hindu priest to open the Senate session with a morning prayer. This country is not simply a Christian nation, it is a nation of many different religions--Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Shinto, Judaism, Orthodox, and even non-religious. If the U.S. Senate is going to open their sessions with a morning prayer, then add a little variety with prayers from all the religions. Personally, I thought it was something special for Hindu clergyman Rajan Zed to open a U.S. Senate with a prayer--it is an honor and a memory that Zed will cherish.

But the Christian fundamentalist wackos don't believe it! America is a Christian nation, and this one Hindu prayer in the Senate is destroying our fundamental family values of the United States. It is like these wackos believe that one little Hindu prayer will destroy America as a Christian nation! Apparently these wackos do not read history. According to the Treaty of Tripoli, 1796, signed by the United States and the Barbary States, under Article 11 the treaty states:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

I find it interesting that the leaders of the United States actually stated in this treaty that the government of the United States is specifically not a government founded on Christianity. According to Wikipedia on the Treaty of Tripoli:

Official records show that after President John Adams sent the treaty to the Senate for ratification in May of 1797, the entire treaty was read aloud on the Senate floor, including the famous words in Article 11, and copies were printed for every Senator. A committee considered the treaty and recommended ratification, and the treaty was ratified by a unanimous vote of all 23 Senators. The treaty was reprinted in full in three newspapers, two in Philadelphia and one in New York City. There is no record of any public outcry or complaint in subsequent editions of the papers.

Even President John Adams, who certainly would have read the treaty, accepted Article 11. The entire Senate accepted Article 11, and the statement that the United States government was not founded on the Christian religion. The U.S. government is stating within this treaty that the U.S. government is not founded on Christianity.

Now I know that the United States is predominantly a Christian nation. Fine. But the First Amendment of the Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...." This amendment protects non-Christian religions from a tyranny of a Christian majority. It is a tyranny that can be seen within these Religious Right wackos protesting against a simple prayer performed by a non-Christian clergyman who does not abide by their own warped, Christian fundamentalist views. They refuse to accept any type of tolerance or compromise. Any views that do not conform to their own warped ideology is almost considered heresy, and should be extinguished. It is just incredible.

Jerry Falwell is dead at 73

This is off MSNBC News:

LYNCHBURG, Va. - The Rev. Jerry Falwell, the television evangelist who founded the Moral Majority and used it to mold the religious right into a political force, died Tuesday shortly after being found unconscious in his office at Liberty University. He was 73.

Ron Godwin, Liberty's executive vice president, said Falwell had been found unresponsive around 10:45 a.m. and was taken to Lynchburg General Hospital.

Godwin said he was not sure what caused the collapse, but noted that Falwell had “a history of heart challenges.”

“I had breakfast with him, and he was fine at breakfast,” Godwin said. “He went to his office, I went to mine and they found him unresponsive.”

Dr. Carl Moore, Falwell’s physician, said the evangelist had had a heart rhythm abnormality. He said Falwell was found without a pulse and never regained consciousness.

I'll be honest here. I'm not sure if I want to feel sorry that Falwell died, or to celebrate Falwell for going to Heck as a result of his bigoted, homophobic, and sexist statements he has made during his life. But one thing I will say is that Jerry Falwell really the founder of the modern day Religious Right. Jerry Falwell was certainly not the first to incorporate television into religious services. But Falwell took the three separate entities of evangelism, television, and political lobbying, and then combined them into his Moral Majority political organization in the early 1980s. It was Falwell who showed the Religious Right how to use their political clout in order to achieve their social and religious agenda. And we can now see the political clout being exerted on the Republican Party through the new religious players as Focus on the Family's James Dobson, the Family Research Council's Tony Perkins, or even the Christian Coalition's Ralph Reed. This was the real legacy of Jerry Falwell.

One interesting question that I will pose now is how many Republican leaders will be attending Falwell's funeral? I'm pretty sure that President Bush will attend the funeral, and give a speech. But will the other GOP presidential candidates attend Falwell's funeral? Will we see Bush, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, and Mitt Romney all together at Falwell's funeral?

Fred Thompson considers a White House run, but James Dobson thinks Thompson is not a Christian

Could this be the next Republican presidential candidate? Former U.S. Senator and "Law and Order" actor Fred Thompson.

I found two interesting stories here that really show a contradiction within the Republican Party. Let's start with this first Washington Post story, titled A 'Law & Order' Presidential Candidate?

"Law & Order" star and former U.S. senator Fred Dalton Thompson is considering a bid for the White House that would test whether Hollywood can once again launch a Republican to the world's premier political stage.

His interest, confirmed in a brief interview this week, is generating buzz in Washington. He was third among Republican-leaning voters in a recent Gallup-USA Today survey, behind Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) and former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani and ahead of former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney.

The onetime senator from Tennessee is known to many Americans for playing New York District Attorney Arthur Branch on "Law & Order" and an admiral in the film "The Hunt for Red October." But his real-life record as a no-nonsense lawmaker who also served as the minority counsel to the Senate Watergate committee is appealing to party activists dissatisfied with the current crop of Republican hopefuls.

"He has a conservative bearing and a conservative presence, but he's independent in his thinking and his voting record," said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), who added that Thompson is "seriously considering" a presidential campaign at the urging of many friends. "He has a commanding television presence that makes every other politician in America jealous."

Alexander, a friend of 40 years and twice a presidential candidate himself, said Thompson is likely to take his time deciding and could wait to enter the contest until around Labor Day. Recalling a well-attended Washington cocktail gathering held Sunday, Alexander said: "Fred Thompson was the talk of the party."

So Fred Thompson is generating a lot of buzz as to whether he is going to run for president. And I would say that he's seriously considering it--even with the competition of McCain, Giuliani, and Romney. But not everyone seems to be happy for a Thompson presidential candidacy. I found this little story off Americablog, where the original source was U.S. News and World Report:

Focus on the Family founder James Dobson appeared to throw cold water on a possible presidential bid by former Sen. Fred Thompson while praising former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who is also weighing a presidential run, in a phone interview Tuesday.

"Everyone knows he's conservative and has come out strongly for the things that the pro-family movement stands for," Dobson said of Thompson. "[But] I don't think he's a Christian; at least that's my impression," Dobson added, saying that such an impression would make it difficult for Thompson to connect with the Republican Party's conservative Christian base and win the GOP nomination.

Mark Corallo, a spokesman for Thompson, took issue with Dobson's characterization of the former Tennessee senator. "Thompson is indeed a Christian," he said. "He was baptized into the Church of Christ."

In a follow-up phone conversation, Focus on the Family spokesman Gary Schneeberger stood by Dobson's claim. He said that, while Dobson didn't believe Thompson to be a member of a non-Christian faith, Dobson nevertheless "has never known Thompson to be a committed Christian—someone who talks openly about his faith."

"We use that word—Christian—to refer to people who are evangelical Christians," Schneeberger added. "Dr. Dobson wasn't expressing a personal opinion about his reaction to a Thompson candidacy; he was trying to 'read the tea leaves' about such a possibility."

Thompson has said he is leaving the door open for a presidential run and has won plaudits from conservatives who are unenthusiastic about the Republican front-runners. A Gallup-USA Today poll, released Tuesday, showed Thompson in third place among Republican and Republican-leaning voters, behind former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Arizona Sen. John McCain.

While making it clear he was not endorsing any Republican presidential candidate, Dobson, who is considered the most politically powerful evangelical figure in the country, also said that Gingrich was the "brightest guy out there" and "the most articulate politician on the scene today."

Talk about a GOP self-destruction here! Focus on the Family founder, and all-around Religious Right, bat-guano-crazy James Dobson makes a wild accusation that Thompson is not a Christian. When Thompson spokesman Corallo responds by saying that Thompson is a member of the Church of Christ and Latter Day Saints, Dobson backpedals, saying that the only true "Christians" are Evangelical Christians. I would guess that means that Catholics are not Christians. Lutherans are not Christians. For all I know, Baptists are also not Christians--that's what James Dobson is saying.

In James Dobson's view, the only credible presidential candidate to succeed George W. Bush is another evangelical. Dobson appears to support former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. Gingrich is a Southern Baptist. Now I know that the fundamentalist movement has been taking over the Southern Baptist church, forcing the denomination to turn to a staunch conservativism. But gee, Mr. Dobson--if you're so insistent that an evangelical Christian can only occupy the White House, then Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton certainly fits into your definition of an "evangelical" Christian, since Mrs. Clinton is a member of the United Methodist Church, which has its own roots in the evangelical movement when the Methodist Church joined with the Evangelical United Brethren back in 1968. Religious affiliation should not make a difference regarding one's qualifications for running for a public office--even that of the presidency. James Dobson doesn't understand that. He wants a George W. Bush-like successor to succeed President George W. Bush. For some reason, he believes that Newt Gingrich is that successor--and the rest of the candidates can go to heck!

Pat Robertson: God told me of 'mass killing' in 2007

This is to be filed under What the Frack? From CNN.Com:

VIRGINIA BEACH, Virginia (AP) -- Evangelical broadcaster Pat Robertson said Tuesday that God has told him that a terrorist attack on the United States would cause a "mass killing" late in 2007.

"I'm not necessarily saying it's going to be nuclear," he said during his news-and-talk television show "The 700 Club" on the Christian Broadcasting Network.

"The Lord didn't say nuclear. But I do believe it will be something like that."

Robertson said God told him about the impending tragedy during a recent prayer retreat.

God also said, he claims, that major cities and possibly millions of people will be affected by the attack, which should take place sometime after September.

I think what is even more amazing is that there are plenty religious wing-nuts who will believe Robertson's "prediction." And I would guess that they'll give even more money to Pat through his 700 Club.

Incredible.

Convert or Die--Get your Left Behind 'shoot-em-up' game at Wal-Mart

I'm not exactly sure what to say about this story. This is from the San Francisco Chronicle:

Liberal and progressive Christian groups say a new computer game in which players must either convert or kill non-Christians is the wrong gift to give this holiday season and that Wal-Mart, a major video game retailer, should yank it off its shelves.

The Campaign to Defend the Constitution and the Christian Alliance for Progress, two online political groups, plan to demand today that Wal-Mart dump Left Behind: Eternal Forces, a PC game inspired by a series of Christian novels that are hugely popular, especially with teens.

The series by Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins is based on their interpretation of the Bible's Book of Revelation and takes place after the Rapture, when Jesus has taken his people to heaven and left nonbelievers behind to face the Antichrist.

Left Behind Games' president, Jeffrey Frichner, says the game actually is pacifist because players lose "spirit points" every time they gun down nonbelievers rather than convert them. They can earn spirit points again by having their character pray.

"You are fighting a defensive battle in the game," Frichner, whose previous company produced Bible software, said of combatting the Antichrist. "You are a sort of a freedom fighter."

A Wal-Mart spokeswoman said the retailer has no plans to pull Left Behind: Eternal Forces from any of the 200 of Wal-Mart's 3,800 stores that offer the game, including just seven in California. The nearest are in Chico and Redding.

"We look at the community to see where it will sell," said Tara Raddohl. "We have customers who are buying it and really haven't received a lot of complaints about it from our customers at this time."

Clark Stevens, co-director of the Campaign to Defend the Constitution, said the game is not peaceful or diplomatic.

"It's an incredibly violent video game," said Stevens. "Sure, there is no blood. (The dead just fade off the screen.) But you are mowing down your enemy with a gun. It pushes a message of religious intolerance. You can either play for the 'good side' by trying to convert nonbelievers to your side or join the Antichrist."

The Rev. Tim Simpson, a Jacksonville, Fla., Presbyterian minister and president of the Christian Alliance for Progress, added: "So, under the Christmas tree this year for little Johnny is this allegedly Christian video game teaching Johnny to hate and kill?"

Now I can understand the American public's interest in violent video games as a means for escapism--look at the popularity of Grand Theft Auto, Medal of Honor, World of Warcraft, or even the longevity of Doom. But even I'm surprised at the hypocrisy of the Religious Right in endorsing this violent game as a means of spreading "Christian values." That is the problem I have with this Left Behind video game--Left Behind Games' president, Jeffrey Frichner, says the game actually is pacifist because players lose "spirit points" every time they gun down nonbelievers rather than convert them. They can earn spirit points again by having their character pray. There is no pacifism in this game--you go in and kill bad guys! When your health or life points start getting low, you stock up by picking up some type of health item--such as a medical kit in the video game Doom--or performing an action such as praying in the Left Behind video game. And then you can go back to killing monsters and bad guys. This talk of pacifism is total crap!

Continuing with the Chronicle story:

Both groups formed in 2005 to protest what their 130,000 or so members feel is the growing political influence and hypocrisy of the religious right.

In Left Behind, set in perfectly apocalyptic New York City, the Antichrist is personified by fictional Romanian Nicolae Carpathia, secretary-general of the United Nations and a People magazine "Sexiest Man Alive."

Players can choose to join the Antichrist's team, but of course they can never win on Carpathia's side. The enemy team includes fictional rock stars and folks with Muslim-sounding names, while the righteous include gospel singers, missionaries, healers and medics. Every character comes with a life story.

When asked about the Arab and Muslim-sounding names, Frichner said the game does not endorse prejudice. But "Muslims are not believers in Jesus Christ" -- and thus can't be on Christ's side in the game.

"That is so obvious," he said.

The game does not endorse prejudice, however you get to blow away bad guys with Arab and Muslim-sounding names because "Muslims are not believers in Jesus Christ" -- and thus can't be on Christ's side in the game. More hypocrisy here. Continuing on:

Left Behind is a real-time strategy and adventure game. Players don't role-play like in Grand Theft Auto -- it's more like the board game Risk than Clue.

Frichner said more than 10,000 retailers -- including Sam's Club, Target, Best Buy, Circuit City, GameStop, EB Games and various Christian stores -- offer the game. He said sales are terrific, though he wouldn't reveal figures.

Protesters are targeting Wal-Mart, where the game retails for $39.96, because it is one of the biggest video game sellers in the United States.

More than 60 million copies of books in the series have sold since the first volume came out in 1996.

Jeff Gerstmann, senior editor at Gamespot.com, an online publication, said the game isn't popular. The game itself, which Gamespot rated 3.4 out of a possible 10, has lots of glitches.

"And it's kind of crazy," Gerstmann said. "One of the evil characters is a rock musician. ... If you get too close to him your spirit is lowered."

But Plugged In, a publication of the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family, gave the game a "thumbs-up." The reviewer called it "the kind of game that Mom and Dad can actually play with Junior -- and use to raise some interesting questions along the way."

Frichner said that is precisely his company's ultimate goal in offering the game: to bring parents and kids together to talk about the Bible. He said most teens are playing video games, so it was natural to turn the books into one.

His business partner, Troy Lyndon, created Madden Football, one of the top-selling sports video games. Left Behind Games Inc. is based in Murrieta (Riverside County).

I just love how Focus on the Family is calling this game "the kind of game that Mom and Dad can actually play with Junior..." Mom, Dad, and Junior can get together to kill Arabs and Muslims in the name of Jesus Christ. Of course, Junior can't play those evil violent games as Doom, or World of Warcraft, or even Harry Potter, since they espouse views that are opposite of what the Bible teaches us, or they are used by Satan to lure away good Christian kids like Junior away from God. And what is even crazier is how the Focus on the Family is encouraging parents to talk to their kids about God and the Bible as the kids are considering blowing away them evil Arab or Muslim nonbelievers with a machine gun, a shotgun, or even a tank?

You have entered the world of the Twilight Zone.

Another pastor resigns after admitting to having gay sex

Is there something in the water or air in Colorado that is making these evangelical pasters to quit after admitting to having gay sex? This is from the New York Times:

The senior pastor of a suburban Denver evangelical church resigned Sunday after admitting to having had sexual relations with men. The move apparently came after the pastor was confronted by another minister in his church who had been alerted by an anonymous caller, The Denver Post reported.

The resignation of the pastor, the Rev. Paul Barnes, from the pulpit of the 2,100-member Grace Chapel megachurch in Englewood came by way of a tearful, 32-minute videotaped address to his congregation.

His departure occurred a month after the Rev. Ted Haggard quit as president of the National Association of Evangelicals and senior pastor of New Life Church in Colorado Springs when a former male prostitute disclosed that Mr. Haggard had had a sexual relationship with him.

Dave Palmer, the associate pastor of Grace Chapel, told The Post that the church received a call last week from a person who had overheard someone speak of “blowing the whistle” on other evangelical ministers in clandestine homosexual relationships, among them Mr. Barnes. Mr. Palmer then spoke with Mr. Barnes.

A spokeswoman for Grace Chapel said that church leaders had declined to comment further. A statement issued by the church on Sunday said that Mr. Barnes, who founded Grace Chapel 28 years ago, had confessed to infidelity; it did not mention homosexuality.

Mr. Barnes said in his address that he had struggled with his attraction to men since he was 5, The Post said. The only time Mr. Barnes said he had talked to his father about sex, his father told him what he would do if a gay man, for which he used a derogatory term, walked up to him.

I guess that is what the church leaders in Grace Chapel are probably asking, now that Barnes resignation has come just on the heels of Ted Haggard's admission to both having gay sex and abusing drugs. I'm just amazed at the hypocrisy here among the evangelical church leaders--I won't say yet if Haggard and Barnes are among the, but not would not be surprised--who were probably screaming that them gay sinners were going to hell, while at the same time having gay sex on the side.

I don't know what else to say but, WTF?

Giuliani Takes First Step in Run for President

This is off The Washington Post:

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani has apparently taken the first step toward a presidential run, filing with the New York Department of State late last week to form a presidential exploratory committee .

Papers for the "Rudy Giuliani For President Exploratory Committee, Inc." were filed last Friday in New York. It is registered as a "domestic not for profit organization."

"Mayor Giuliani has not made a decision yet," said treasurer John H. Gross. "With the filing of this document, we have taken the necessary legal steps so an organization can be put in place and money can be raised to explore a possible presidential run in 2008."

Unlike people like Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack (D) or Arizona Sen. John McCain (R), who will file their exploratory committees with the Federal Election Commission, Giuliani chose to file his organization with New York's Secretary of State.

Why? Early reports from campaign finance lawyers suggest that Giuliani will not be required to disclose any of his donations or expenditures through the state registered not-for-profit; he would not have that luxury with a federal committee. With the state-based organization he would not be able to accept any donations over the federal limits (roughly $2,100 per each individual), but would be able to transfer any money he raises into a federal presidential account. The FEC calls this sort of activity "testing the waters" -- and provides specific guidelines for candidates choosing this fundraising route.

In our most recent Friday Presidential Line, Giuliani is ranked as the third-most likely candidate to win the Republican nomination.

Aside from the particulars, Giuliani's toe-dip into the presidential waters isn't terribly surprising. He spent much of the final few months of the 2006 campaign stumping for House and Senate candidates around the country. However, he has yet to begin building campaign infrastructures in early states like Iowa and New Hampshire.

A couple thoughts on this story. First, there is no way that Giuliani, a moderate Republican, can garner enough support from both the neocons and the Religious Right wing sections of the Republican Party to make a serious run for the White House. For all the "thumping" that the Republican Party took in the midterm elections, it is still a Republican Party of George W. Bush's molding, with its emphasis in divisive politics, its refusal to compromise, or even in engaging in bipartisanship with the Democrats. The Republican Party is still a hard right-wing party, no matter what the political pundits are saying in the aftermath of the elections. There is no room for a moderate Republican of Giuliani's stature in the presidential political race.

The second problem with the Giuliani 2008 presidential campaign is John McCain. According to a November 10, 2006 ABC News story:

ABC News has learned that Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and his political team have decided it's full steam ahead for his 2008 presidential campaign though he has yet to make the final, official decision.

Sources close to McCain say on Wednesday in Phoenix, he and a half dozen of his top aides huddled and decided to proceed more formally with his quest for the White House.

McCain told ABC News that his team will continue to meet and "go through the process of decision making." But, he added, "I certainly haven't made any decision."

A presidential exploratory committee is expected to be set up this month — perhaps as early as next week.

John McCain has been lusting after the White House since 2000, when McCain lost the Republican presidential nomination to George W. Bush. For the past year, McCain has been courting the Religious Right wing of the Republican Party, delivering a commencement address at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University on May 13. McCain has been courting the Religious Right voters in the hopes of averting the disaster McCain experienced back in 2000, where Bush supporters spread "salacious rumors about McCain in phone calls and e-mail messages. One such rumor accused McCain of fathering illegitimate children." This smear campaign against McCain caused McCain to lose the South Carolina primary to Bush.

The real issue here is that this is probably the last shot that John McCain has for winning the White House. In 2008, John McCain will be 72 years old--McCain will be the oldest president elected to the White House. Ronald Reagan was 69 when he was elected to the presidency in 1980. The last thing that John McCain will want is to have a nasty Republican primary race with the former New York City mayor, and the Republican Party's 9/11 political hero, Rudolph Giuliani. It is no wonder that Giuliani filed his exploratory bid through the state of New York, rather than through the Federal Election's Commission. Not only does this allow Giuliani to accept contributions greater than the FEC limit, but that Giuliani may also realize just how formidable the McCain organization could become, once McCain officially enters the race.

The race for the 2008 White House has just started.

Some comments on another GOP scandal--Evangelist Ted Haggard taking drugs and having sex with a male prostitute

This photo made available by New Life Church shows the Rev. Ted Haggard, president of the National Association of Evangelicals, in Sept. 2005 in Colorado Springs, Colo. Haggard agreed to resign Saturday, Nov. 4, 2006 after the New Life Church's independent investigative board recommended removal, saying he was guilty 'of sexuallly immoral conduct.'(AP Photo/Erik Stenbakken, New Life Church)

It has been a busy last couple of days regarding GOP scandals. One scandal I've been meaning to write about is the controversy surrounding Evangelist Ted Haggard. Let's start with CNN.Com:

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colorado (CNN) -- The Rev. Ted Haggard, who has resigned as one of the nation's top evangelical leaders, admitted Friday he had contacted a male prostitute for a massage and bought methamphetamine.

"I was buying it for me, but I never used it," said Haggard, 50, sitting in the driver's seat of a car with his wife, Gayle, at his side during an impromptu interview with CNN Denver affiliate KUSA-TV.

"I never kept it very long because it was wrong. I was tempted. I bought it. But I never used it." Haggard also acknowledged contacting Mike Jones but has denied Jones' accusation that the two men regularly had sex over three years.

Mike Jones poses for a photographer in downtown Denver on Thursday, Nov. 2, 2006. Jones told the Associated Press on Thursday that evangelical leader Rev. Ted Haggard paid him to have sex as many as 36 times over three years. Haggard resigned as president of the influential National Association of Evangelicals on Thursday following Jones' allegations. (AP Photo/Ed Andrieski)

The admissions -- after Haggard's earlier denials that he even knew Jones -- resonated among America's evangelicals and Christian leaders.

Haggard resigned as president of the National Association of Evangelicals, an umbrella group representing more than 45,000 churches with 30 million members.

He also temporarily stepped aside Thursday as senior pastor of the 14,000-member New Life Church in Colorado Springs, pending an internal investigation into Jones' allegations.

Haggard was one of a group of religious leaders who regularly participated in conference calls with White House aides, Time magazine reported.

On Friday, the White House sought to downplay Haggard's influence within the administration.

Spokesman Tony Fratto told reporters Friday that it was inaccurate to portray him as being close to the White House, insisting Haggard was only an occasional participant in weekly conference calls between West Wing staff and leading evangelicals.

Last year, Time -- citing Haggard's White House access -- put him on its list of the nation's 25 most influential evangelicals.

In other words, Ted Haggard is one of the Top 25 Evangelists who possesses enormous religious power among the country's evangelicals, and political power within the Bush White House. And now Haggard has been exposed to not only purchasing meth from a male prostitute, but also having sex with that male prostitute for three years. Even more damaging to the Republican Party is that the revelations of this scandal takes place just five days before the midterm elections. In addition, The Denver Post reports that Colorado voters will go to the polls to choose two major initiatives "related to gay rights and marriage. Haggard is a chief supporter of Amendment 43, which would define marriage as only between a man and a woman, and he has taken no position on Referendum I, which would grant domestic- partnership rights to same-sex couples." President Bush traveled to Colorado today, to first deliver a radio address touting the U.S. economy in Englewood, and then attended a campaign rally in Greeley, Colorado, for GOP Rep. Marilyn Musgrave. I can't say whether this trip to Colorado by the president was planned weeks in advanced, or was quickly put together as a GOP defense to shore up the Colorado Republican base, but the timing between the Haggard revelations and the president's trip is certainly interesting.

While I don't want to get into too much of the details of the Haggard story, I will say that the mainstream media has quickly latched onto this story. You can find some of the latest details of the Haggard scandal here on CNN, ABC News, The Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, and The Washington Post. And while Ted Haggard has continued to deny having sexual relations with Mike Jones, MSNBC is reporting that Jones gave NBC affiliate KUSA-TV multiple voice mails left by Haggard requesting purchases of meth from Jones. The Denver police are now looking into this matter. The more these revelations start to surface regarding this latest scandal, the more damaging it becomes for the Republican Party. This scandal first shows the hypocrisy of Ted Haggard--an evangelical leader of a major church and an evangelical association, who has attacked homosexuality and gay marriage with his support of Colorado's Amendment 43, only now to be exposed in having sex with a male prostitute. You've got to wonder what Haggard's religious views on drug abuse are.

Finally, there is one final little detail that the Bush White House does not want to be known. According to the Rocky Mountain News:

WASHINGTON - As president of the National Association of Evangelicals, the Rev. Ted Haggard has advised the White House on issues ranging from judicial appointments to steel tariffs.

But he also sought to widen the agenda of Christian evangelicals into areas the Bush administration - and many of his Christian brethren - would rather avoid.

Although he had been active in lobbying for conservative Christian causes before, Haggard's profile rose after he became head of the NAE early in 2003.

He made frequent visits to the White House and was included in a select group of religious leaders briefed on the administration's agenda during a weekly teleconference with White House staff, a session meant to "feel the evangelical pulse," he's said.

"We have direct access (to the White House)," Haggard told a Wall Street Journal reporter shortly before the last presidential election, adding that he could take a concern to the president through staff and get a response within 24 hours.

Asked Friday about the Haggard controversy, White House spokesman Tony Fratto downplayed the pastor's connections to the Bush administration.

"He had been on a couple of (conference) calls but was not a weekly participant in those calls," Fratto said, adding that Haggard had been to the White House "one or two times."

"But there have been a lot of people who come to the White House," Fratto said.

[....]

Haggard was naturally on the "A" list of evangelical Christians invited to the Bush White House for the signing of a bill banning late-term abortions or to be called in advance of any announcement for a chat about pending Supreme Court nominees.

You can bet this is one detail that the Bush White House does not want major public exposure of. Look at how White House spokesman Tony Fratto tried to downplay Haggard's visits as just "one or two times." And just a couple of conference calls? The last thing the Bush administration wants is to become tainted with this scandal--especially since Haggard was one of the Top 25 Most influential Evangelical Leaders, as Time reported. In fact, Time also reports:

A document issued last fall offered a theological justification for civic activism by U.S. Evangelicals, calling on them to protect the environment, promote global religious and political freedom and human rights, safeguard "wholesome family life," care for the poor and oppose racism. Says Haggard: "With the growth of Evangelicalism worldwide, we have to be involved in political and social action to impact the culture worldwide."

This is not a man who simply goes to the White House participates in "a couple of [conference] calls," or visits the White House "one or two times."

More Republican scandals....

Update--Haggard resigns from Colorado Church. The information just came over as I was writing this post. From MSNBC:

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. - The Rev. Ted Haggard agreed to resign Saturday from his New Life Church after its independent investigative board recommended removal, saying he was guilty “of sexually immoral conduct.”

“We, the Overseer Board of New Life Church, have concluded our deliberations concerning the moral failings of Pastor Ted Haggard,” a statement from the church said. “Our investigation and Pastor Haggard’s public statements have proven without a doubt that he has committed sexually immoral conduct.”