The title of this WorldNetDaily article says it all:
You cannot be a Christian and vote for Obama
Via the comments at Dispatches From the Culture Wars
The title of this WorldNetDaily article says it all:
You cannot be a Christian and vote for Obama
Via the comments at Dispatches From the Culture Wars
Minnesota Republican Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann, speaking at the Living Word Christian Centre, October 14, 2006:
God then called me to run for the United States Congress, and I thought “What in the world will that be for?” and my husband said “You need to do this,” and I wasn’t so sure, and we took 3 days and we fasted and we prayed and we said, “Lord. Is this what you want? Is this your will?” and after long about the afternoon of day two, he made that calling sure. And its been now 22 months that I’ve been running for United States Congress. Who in their right mind would spend 2 years to run for a job that lasts 2 years? You’d have to be absolutely a fool to do that. You are now looking at a fool for Christ. This is a fool for Christ. (Minnesota Monitor)
Michelle Bachmann, fool for Christ, on MSNBC’s Hardball, October 2008:
Matthews: “You believe Barack Obama may have anti-American views? You’re suspicious he has anti-American views?”Bachmann: “Absolutely. Absolutely. I’m very concerned that he may have anti-American views. That’s what the American people are concerned about. That’s why they want to know what his answers are.”
Michelle Bachmann, a few days later, lying for Christ:
I did not say that Barack Obama was anti-American, nor do I believe Barack Obama is anti-American. He loves his country, just as everyone in this room does.
Michelle Bachmann, fool for Christ:
Matthews: How many congresspeople are in the anti-American crowd you describe?
[. . .]
Bachmann: What I would say is that the news media should do a penetrating expose and take a look. I wish they would. I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out: Are they pro-America or anti-America? I think people would love to see an expose like that.
Michelle Bachmann, liar for Christ:
Nor did I call for an investigation of members of Congress for their pro-American or anti-American views. That is not what I said.
I don’t get it. Why would a Christian lie?
Via LA Times.
Times have changed. Time was when an Ann Coulter could spout off a line like “We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity,” or muse dreamily about what might have been if Timothy McVeigh had bombed the New York Times, and it would barely have raised more than a guffaw among the right-wing chattering classes. It certainly wouldn’t have harmed Bush’s re-election prospects.
In 2008, the ritual brainfarting that ensues each time a drooling authoritarian follower decides to open its mouth is embarrassing the Republican presidential team. Said team, of course, executed the initial shooting of itself in the foot with its desperate attempts to link Obama to terrorism. As this footage of a McCain rally in Ohio demonstrates (and where you’ll hear the “bloodlines” soundbite), where authoritarian leaders lead, authoritarian followers follow, with consequences by turns outrageous, racist and stupid:
There’s even more in this NBC report, in which political analyst Richard Wolffe advises the Republican team to take a leaf out of the Australian conservatives’ playbook and engage in dogwhistle politics rather than foghorn politics which, he suggests, will turn off the swing voters and independents.
As you can see, much has changed since 2004. The fallout from the Obama=terrorist smear campaign now has McCain and Palin at loggerheads.
HT to OK WASSUP and Evolutionary Middleman.
Two weeks in fundie . . .
It is high time the lunatic fringe of Christianity made up its mind about who the Anti-Christ is supposed to be.
On the one hand, a commenter by the name of “Mister Truthful” this morning made a very sound case for Barack Obama being the Anti-Christ:
IF WE ADD UP THE LETTERS IN HISFIRST, MIDDLE & LAST NAME, WE
WILL GET 666 IF WE USE SOME UNDERSTANDING!
**SO HERE IS THE FORMULA:
HIS FIRST NAME IS BARACK.
HIS MIDDLE NAME IS HUSSEIN.
HIS LAST NAME IS OBAMA.
BARACK HAS—————6 LETTERS
HUSSEIN HAS—————7 LETTERS
OBAMA HAS—————-5 LETTERS
NOW 6 PLUS 7 PLUS 5 EQUALS 18.
AND IF WE BREAK DOWN THE NUMBER 18.
WE WILL GET 6 PLUS 6 PLUS 6.
AND 666 IS THE MARK OF THE BEAST!
And he wrote that in ALLCAPS, so it must be true.
(UPDATE: BTW, nice work, Satan!)
On the other hand, former McCain endorser Pastor John Hagee has advanced the thesis that the Anti-Christ will be a Jewish gay homosexual: Read the rest of this entry »
And if it isn’t, should it be?
I’ve been engaged in discussion with Ninglun over these very questions, and it seems to me that the answer lies in how Section 116 of the Australian Constitution is interpreted. The section reads:
Australian Constitution – Section 116 – Commonwealth not to legislate in respect of religion
The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth. [Emphasis added]
Ninglun’s position is that while Australia may officially “neutral” with regard to religion, it cannot be described as “officially secular.” Mine is that Australia cannot possibly be neutral with regard to religion unless it is secular. If an Australian government takes a policy position that is based upon a religious doctrine–a policy position for which no secular, well-reasoned justification is offered–then it is effectively imposing observance of that particular religion. It is privileging one particular religious perspective over the perspectives of other religions as well as the non-religious, and would therefore be neither neutral with regard to religion, nor secular.
Why is it important that governments in liberal democracies, in pluralistic societies like ours, present to the electorate secular, well-reasoned justifications for their policy positions? Because they need to speak to us in a language that we all–not just the majority, but all of us–can understand and engage with. Barack Obama puts it much better than I ever could:
Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.
Anything less is neither liberal nor democratic. Read the rest of this entry »
The week in fundie . . .
. . . or this post and its comments thread are further evidence that the United States is suffering from an oversupply of drooling fucklords.
Via Ninglun.
Recent Comments