harikari.com

Greg Saunders has a post up over at The Talent Show about how much the Presidential Prayer Team website has changed since Barack Obama was sworn in as president. 

The organization used to claim to be non-partisan, but I could find no such claim on their website today. 

The Saunders’ post includes archived screen shots from the past that prominently feature photos of President Bush, including one with images of Abraham Lincoln and George Washington photoshopped in standing next to Bush and touching his shoulders as their heads are bowed in prayer.  Another archived page shows the site used to mention Bush and Cheney’s name on the front page.  Today’s front page has no photo of President Obama or anyone else in his administration and it does not mention his name.

The Bible quote that used to be displayed in the masthead has been moved to the “About Us” page where it is displayed in very faint grey font against a white background.  One gets the feeling that they don’t really want you to read that part.

Go to The Talent Show now for more about this.

GQ Magazine has posted about a dozen cover sheets for Department of Defense briefings that were published during the Iraq War.  The briefings depict U.S. soldiers as Christian crusaders fighting a Holy War against Muslims. 

The A.P. reports:

For a period in 2003, at least, the daily reports prepared for President George W. Bush carried quotes from the books of Psalms, and Ephesians and Peter. At the time, the reports focused largely on the war in Iraq.

The Bible quotes apparently aimed to support Bush at a time when soldiers’ deaths in Iraq were on the rise, according to the June issue of GQ magazine. But they offended at least one Muslim analyst at the Pentagon and worried other employees that the passages were inappropriate.

This is exactly the kind of response that bin Laden hoped to get from the U.S. so that he could claim we are fighting a Holy War against Muslims.  And he got it…  six years later.  He’s most likely seen these by now and is no doubt preparing a response and a call to arms for his Muslim crusaders.  “Bring ‘em On!”

Rumsfeld and his staff had to have known that this stuff would eventually see the light of day.  It always does, so it’s really amazing and scary that top officials in our government can be so audaciously rigtheous and stupid.

During the drive in to work this morning I listened to a story on NPR about how polls in rural Lincoln County Missouri show that the presidential race there is a toss-up.  NPR reported that the outcome of the Lincoln County vote has mirrored the national vote in the past twelve presidential elections. 

The reporter interviewed several voters for the story, but the two that really got my attention were Thomas Burkemper, a lawyer in the Lincoln County seat of Troy and chairman of the county’s Democratic Central Committee; and Carol Wessel, a real estate agent who serves as chairwoman of the Lincoln County Republican Central Committee.

“Locally, people were afraid to run as a Republican. But nationally they would vote Republican,” says Carol Wessel. …  “They would come up to me and say, ‘Carol, I’m really a Republican. But … because I want this position, I’ve got to run as a Democrat.’”

Wessel says local Democrats and Republicans share strong conservative beliefs opposing abortion, gay marriage and gun control.  They also share values based on religion.  They’re Catholics and Baptists, and they go to church.

And the newcomers “increased substantially the church attendance,” according to Burkemper, who asks and answers this question:

“How hard will the churches come out and swear that we either vote for McCain or go to hell? I don’t think that the churches are going to cut the same swath in this election as they did in 2004 and 2000.  Because the people are hurting. … The people are angry about the economy.”

…

Wessel has confronted conservatives who cite the economy when they tell her they won’t vote for Republican John McCain.

“I tell them ‘I’m a Christian first,’” Wessel recalls. ” ‘And if you vote your true Christian values and vote for the candidate that you think is ethically right and has the [right] values, that will take care of the economy.”

Aren’t these conservative Christians the same people that voted for George W. Bush because he professes to be a born-again Christian and supposedly shares their values?  Hasn’t the Bush Administration been in charge for the past eight years?  Aren’t we now facing the worst financial crisis since The Great Depression?  Does Carol Wessel even hear herself when she speaks? 

Howard Berkes, the NPR correspondent, didn’t bother to ask her these questions or if she shared some of the same values of Barack Obama, also a Christian.

I’ve never met President Bush and I hope I never do, so I can’t judge if he is sincere about his religious beliefs.  All I can go by is what he says and how he governs, and he governs like a man with the morals of a laughing hyena.

He pushed through tax cuts for his extremely wealthy base.  He started an unnecessary war and lied about why he started it.  He hasn’t raised one tax to pay for the trillion dollars it has cost so far.  He authorized the use of torture.  He suspended habeus corpus for anyone he used his unitary executive power to label an “enemy combatant,” and he authorized secret renditions of innocent people to foreign countries where they were secretly tortured.

This is a man who shares the values of conservative Christians in Lincoln County?  I don’t really think so, so I hope they vote their economic interests this time, because their morality based votes haven’t worked out so well for them.

Oh, and shortly after hearing that story, I read today’s Progress Report that was centered on the story of Joe the Plumber.  The article reports on how the Right jumped on the story to promote the myth that average people do better under Republican economic policies than Democratic policies.  The article then points out:

President Bill Clinton decided early in his term in office that expanding the middle class — not tax cuts for the rich — would be the engine of economic growth, while his successor, President George W. Bush, argued the opposite. But the as the results have shown, a progressive tax policy enacted by President Clinton achieved far superior results for the economy. By the end of Clinton’s second term, unemployment stood at very low 3.9 percent while today it has risen over 6 percent. The poverty rate was lower in 2000 than it is today. The median household income (adjusted for inflation) was over $3,000 higher eight years ago. Bush inherited a $237 billion federal budget surplus, which he has turned into a $482 billion deficit (and growing fast).

Mr. Fish illustrated the unnatural combination of politics and religion perfectly in this week’s comic featuring a caricature of Barack Obama.  Go read it now and then come back here.

Mr. Fish could make the same point with any of the candidates running for president.  All he’d have to do is replace Obama with McCain and add statements made by James Agee, or replace him with Clinton and mention her former pastor who was recently convicted of molesting a seven-year-old girl or her membership in The Fellowship.

All the candidates would be well advised to lay off each others’ ties to religious figures and religious organizations.  Counter attacks are too easy and, no matter how much the media chooses to focus on it, religion isn’t supposed to have anything to do with who we choose to be our president.  What’s supposed to matter is what the candidates themselves say and do.

The real story isn’t that these candidates are Christians and attend churches.  The real story is about how the media’s coverage is driven by race.

Read E. J. Dionne, Jr. today.

It was in the late 1940s when, as a pre-teen,  I first heard the word “bigotry.”  Washington State had restrictive liquor laws.  No Sunday sales.  You could not carry a drink in a bar.  If you wanted to change tables you had to call for a barmaid (hey, it was 60 years ago) to take your beer to your new location.  Few places had liquor by the drink.  I can remember my folks going to the old Dick Parker’s dance hall in north Seattle where they would set a bottle of liquor under the table, order set-ups from the house and enjoy an evening of dancing to Duke Ellington’s band. 

Well, an initiative was placed on the ballot to liberalize the laws and create a “Class H” license whereby liquor by the drink would be readily available.  Although I was a constant captive to the church’s message that this was the work of Satan I was struck by the theme of the pro-initiative forces who called the church groups bigots, which they defined as “I don’t like it so you can’t have it!”  The initiative passed and some still contend that Satan prevailed.  They have a hard time separating “secular” and “Satan.”

Yesterday we had Huckabee echoing the illustrious Ellen Craswell in his statement to the effect that the Bible trumps the Constitution.  The evangelicals captured the Republican party in Washington a few years back and Craswell was nominated to run against Gary Locke–his good fortune.  She repeatedly proclaimed that she would use the Bible as her guide if there were a conflict with the Constitution.  She was trounced.  Huckabee’s religious belief that the wife should be subservient to the husband should make him a good target down the line. 

One of my favorite defining court rulings was by the California Supreme Court when it ruled that a school board, which had banned a book from its district libraries because “it offended Christian values,” had acted unconstitutionally.  It noted that books could be deemed inappropriate but not on the basis of religious considerations.

All of this is an introduction to the God-O-Meter  Earlier today on MSNBC I viewed an interview about it.  Go to the site and start wondering who the bigots are in this country.

H. L. Mencken noted:  Moral certainty is always a sign of cultural inferiority.  The more uncivilized the man, the surer he is that he knows precisely what is right  and what is wrong.  All human progress, even in morals, has been the work of men who have doubted the current moral values, not of men who have whooped them up and tried to enforce them.  The truly civilized man is always skeptical and tolerant, in this field as in all others.  His culture is based on “I am not too sure.” 

It’s too bad that Romney’s “Faith in America” speech is even necessary, but he felt pressured into it and delivered it yesterday.

Here’s what he got right:

Today, I wish to address a topic which I believe is fundamental to America’s greatness: our religious liberty.

…I am an American running for President. I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith.

“Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.

“As Governor, I tried to do the right as best I knew it, serving the law and answering to the Constitution. I did not confuse the particular teachings of my church with the obligations of the office and of the Constitution – and of course, I would not do so as President. I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law.

…A President must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States.

…Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.

…No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith.

…We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion.

Anyone familiar with the U.S. Constitution knows all that should go without saying.  We should hear similar statements from all the candidates, not just Romney.  (Are you listening Mr. Huckabee?)

What he got wrong:

“Given our grand tradition of religious tolerance and liberty, some wonder whether there are any questions regarding an aspiring candidate’s religion that are appropriate. I believe there are.

…When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God.

…no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people.

But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong.

…Perhaps the most important question to ask a person of faith who seeks a political office, is this: does he share these American values: the equality of human kind, the obligation to serve one another, and a steadfast commitment to liberty?

…Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me. And so it is for hundreds of millions of our countrymen: we do not insist on a single strain of religion – rather, we welcome our nation’s symphony of faith.

The common thread through all those statements is that he excludes “the faithless” as if agnostics and atheists are second-class citizens not worthy of his attention.

Is the religion of an aspiring candidate an issue we should question?  I think not, but obviously many millions think otherwise.  Again, read the Constitution – it’s not an issue.

If he became president he would make a promise to God?  So when it gets right down to it, if God and the citizens of America are in disagreement, who does he serve?

Can a movement of conscience speak to non-religious people?  Is he saying they don’t have consciences?

When this country was formed, it was for the most part made up of Christians and Deists.  Since then, our country has absorbed people from all around the world, and they’ve all brought with them their own religions – what Romney calls a “Symphony of Faith.”  Let’s run with that metaphor for a second.  If everything is in balance, the symphony sounds great.  Occasionally the violins dominate, sometimes the woodwinds, sometimes the brass, sometimes the percussion.  But what if one voice always dominated?  What if all we ever heard were trumpets and trombones at 120 decibels?  That would drive many out of the hall, even some of the concertgoers who also played brass instruments would get sick of it.  So tempering the religious displays in the public square is not necessarily about removing any acknowledgement of God, it’s about balancing it all out so that no one religion dominates.

Oh, and secularism is not a religion.  I can’t believe he even said that.  Maybe he had W read his speech and asked him for suggestions.

And about that “most important question to ask a person of faith.”  He can’t ask an atheist the same question?  Does he think they aren’t qualified to answer it?  Probably not since they don’t fall into the group he refers to as his allies.

It’s not hard to guess how the non-believers will respond to his speech. 

So how will the Christian Republicans respond?  Can they accept a Mormon as their candidate for president?

They should be able to, but I’m betting they won’t.

If you were voting in the Republican primary tomorrow, which candidate would get your vote and why?

“Uh, hello? Rudolph Giuliani. He protected New York City from the terrorists on 9/11 and he’s like the anti-terrorist version of Sean Connery in the Untouchables. The Iraqi people put me in a wheelchair, so now he’ll put one of them in a torture prison.”

via Something Awful

For the following reasons, I don’t think this primary season is going to be easy for Republicans.

1. Romney will implode on the issue of his religion. Proper Xtians don’t like Mormons and Mormons don’t like a Massachusetts Governor who won’t defend their faith — and Mormonism is tough as shit to defend under serious scrutiny.

2. Huckabee, like Romney, will fall under the weight of his faith. He is simply TOO religious.

3. Giuliani has secrets just waiting to find the right mouthpiece.

4. Ron Paul isn’t a republican.

5. Thompson’s a poseur. He’s a great republican, though. Just like Reagan.

6. Tancredo’s a nutjob. Tancredo, before it’s too late… WTF!?!?

7. Hunter is…wait. Who? Actually, if Hunter wins the nom and chooses Fred Thompson as his running mate, I may actually consider voting for “Hunter/Thompson 2008″.

8. McCain. Caucus Republicans love him, but don’t believe in him. Hate him, but respect him. He won’t pander to the Christians, he won’t get tough on terrorists, he did spend 5 years in a Vietnam prison camp, but he ran against Dear Leader 8 years ago, and lost. If he can’t defend his nomination from a draft dodger, how can he defend our country from islamo-fascist militants who want to bomb our malls and poison our small town water towers? However, I think he’s the only one who could kick the Dem nom’s ass in 2008 if he manages to get past the past 6 years of lap-dogging and elbow rubbing.

From Thom Hartmann’s column:

When Columbus first landed on Hispaniola in 1492, virtually the entire island was covered by lush forest. The Taino “Indians” who loved there had an apparently idyllic life prior to Columbus, from the reports left to us by literate members of Columbus’s crew such as Miguel Cuneo.

When Columbus and his crew arrived on their second visit to Hispaniola, however, they took captive about two thousand local villagers who had come out to greet them. Cuneo wrote: “When our caravels… where to leave for Spain, we gathered…one thousand six hundred male and female persons of those Indians, and these we embarked in our caravels on February 17, 1495…For those who remained, we let it be known (to the Spaniards who manned the island’s fort) in the vicinity that anyone who wanted to take some of them could do so, to the amount desired, which was done.”

Cuneo further notes that he himself took a beautiful teenage Carib girl as his personal slave, a gift from Columbus himself, but that when he attempted to have sex with her, she “resisted with all her strength.” So, in his own words, he “thrashed her mercilessly and raped her.”

While Columbus once referred to the Taino Indians as cannibals, a story made up by Columbus – which is to this day still taught in some US schools – to help justify his slaughter and enslavement of these people. He wrote to the Spanish monarchs in 1493: “It is possible, with the name of the Holy Trinity, to sell all the slaves which it is possible to sell…Here there are so many of these slaves, and also brazilwood, that although they are living things they are as good as gold…”

Columbus and his men also used the Taino as sex slaves: it was a common reward for Columbus’ men for him to present them with local women to rape. As he began exporting Taino as slaves to other parts of the world, the sex-slave trade became an important part of the business, as Columbus wrote to a friend in 1500: “A hundred castellanoes (a Spanish coin) are as easily obtained for a woman as for a farm, and it is very general and there are plenty of dealers who go about looking for girls; those from nine to ten (years old) are now in demand.”

There’s more.  Hartmann also writes briefly about the “Pequot War of 1636.” 

I remember reading about this war in a college American Literature class and have never forgotten how the first American settlers praised God for enclosing the “savages” in a small area so that they could kill and burn them easily.

The quote from William Bradford’s journal:  “It was a fearful sight to see them thus frying in the fire and the streams of blood quenching the same, and horrible was the stink and scent thereof; but the victory seemed a sweet sacrifice, and they gave praise thereof to God, who had wrought so wonderfully for them.”

What a country.

My conservative friends manage to keep me abreast of all the scurrilous right-wing emails that are fraught with lies, deception and stupidity.  A new one is making the rounds complaining about the new president dollars that the mint has just issued. 

The allegation is that “In God We Trust” has been left off this new coin: “By omitting these words, our politically correct, secularist leaders made a conscientious decision that either 1) God does not exist, 2) that God exists but can no longer be trusted.”

The email goes on to say, “I am personally offended and fed up with the denigration of God and Christianity in my country.  I am certain George Washington would never have agreed to his picture on the coin if it in any way diminished faith in God.”

Setting aside for the moment the fact that the writer is abysmally ignorant of Washington’s religious beliefs, the real kicker is that the inscription is on the coin.  In a departure from tradition – something conservatives are loathe to tolerate – the inscription is on the outside edge of the coin and not on the obverse or reverse.  The date, “E Pluribus Unum,” and the mint mark are also there.  (Visit the U.S. Mint’s page devoted to the new dollar to see all of the markings in great detail.)

To send such a message the writer had to be: 1) dull-witted; 2) deliberately lying, or 3) non compos mentis – not that those terms are exclusive nor infrequent attributes of the writers of right-wing screed.

Watch for this one and, if the sender has violated the protocols of email and revealed all recipients, which they seem inclined to do, reply to all of the recipients with a dose of the truth.  I get interesting responses from the “reeducated.”

Such tomfoolery would be out of place in Sweden, which trails only Estonia in the percentage of the population that doesn’t believe in God.

(I should note that it is possible that the writer obtained some of the early issues that missed the edge printing but that error was publicized widely and the defective coins have become collector’s items.  I doubt that such is the case with this author of the off-the-wall criticism that I received.)

 - The Old Viking