Get ready for more Gawd talk and praising Jeebus from the candidates in coming weeks and months and stock up on plenty of antacid and Pepto Bismol. We are all going to need it.

McCain, Obama to participate in church forum

LAKE FOREST, Calif. - Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama will participate next month in a question-and-answer forum at Saddleback Church, Pastor Rick Warren said Monday.

Warren is the author of “The Purpose Driven Life.”

At least, however, Warren doesn’t seem as big of a whackadoo as Huckabee and Hagee. Warren is actually working to help people as stated on his website:

As a global strategist , Dr. Warren advises leaders in the public, private, and faith sectors on leadership development, poverty, health, education, and faith in culture. He has been invited to speak at the United Nations, the World Economic Forum in Davos, the African Union, the Council on Foreign Relations, Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, TIME’s Global Health Summit, and numerous congresses around the world. TIME magazine named him one of “15 World Leaders Who Mattered Most in 2004” and in 2005 one of the “100 Most Influential People in the World.” Also, in 2005 U.S. News & World Report named him one of “ America’s 25 Best Leaders”.

When will people see the the real “faith” belongs in human endeavor? We can accomplish much if we just rid ourselves of the religion obstacle and believe in each other and humankind.

Pat Robertson is boo-hooing that Americans United for Separation of Church and State is once again stifling his speech. People For the American Way (Right Wing Watch) are trying to “stifle” their speech. The truth is that all these watchdog groups do is broadcast the words that spew forth from the mouths of Robertson, DeMint and other rightwing whackadoos to a larger audience. AND what spews out of their mouths is rightfully being criticized and lambasted for being bigoted and for promoting suppression of people who are different from them whom they deem “immoral” and a “threat to society” based on their own prejudiced, personal religious “moral judgment.” The only ones they have to blame for “embarrassing” themselves, are themselves. They probably don’t even hear what they are saying when they talk.

Jim DeMint and Pat Robertson Boo-Hooing They Are Silenced

“Whisper” my ass!

I really should start a category for Boo-hooing since these posts are growing in numbers.

If you haven’t seen it yet, here is the latest from Jib Jab for some fun campaign humor.

Nice one from Crooks and Liars:

In discussion of McCain’s painful fumbling over why health insurance covers Viagra but not birth control, The Situation Room panel…debate the position between a rock and a hard place that McCain finds himself, eager to win over those feminist Clinton supporters but hesitant to speak out against that mainstay of the Republican platform: restricting women’s reproductive freedom. [...]

CAFFERTY: Well, you know, the answer is Viagra is used to treat a medical condition, erectile dysfunction. Birth control is a lifestyle choice. And that’s why insurance companies don’t reimburse for it unless pregnancy represents a danger for the woman. And then there’s a gray area where you can do a negotiation.

Excuse me? I know that most men don’t have a huge well of knowledge on the workings of a woman’s body…but I think that in absence of knowledge, it might be smarter to avoid definite declarations like that. Oral contraceptives are absolutely used to treat medical conditions [...] And since when is the life of a woman to be considered a “gray area” for negotiation? But there’s no gray area about a man’s desire to get it up, nor any consideration to the consequences of what happens when he can? Jack, you disappoint me.

But the reply is simply: let’s just say why McCain’s comments are right in line with the ‘publicans: because sex for any reason besides procreation is BAD, and there’s no real reason for a woman to have an orgasm unless she’s also willing to “fully commit” to pregnancy and childbirth.

And we all know where such a line of bullshit comes from…

But, of course, that’s a “religious belief,” so we can’t criticize it…

Well, just so we’re all on the same page (cuz, like, it’s kind of important)…

The power to imprison U.S. citizens without charges

…[T]he President has the power to arrest U.S. citizens and legal residents inside the U.S., and imprison them indefinitely in a military prison, without charging them with any crime, based on his assertion that the imprisoned individual is an “enemy combatant.” [...] [T]he President can order anyone in the U.S. imprisoned in a military brig as an “enemy combatant” — even if they have never fought on a battlefield or with a foreign power against the U.S. Rather, mere accusations by the President of “terrorism” are sufficient to justify the indefinite incarceration of such an individual as an “enemy combatant,” who is then denied basic Constitutional guarantees. To say that such individuals can be held “for the duration of relevant hostilities” means, of course, that such individuals can be imprisoned by the President in a military brig not just for years but for decades. [...] Most critically of all … this decision applies every bit as much, and to exactly the same extent, to U.S. citizens on U.S. soil as it does to non-citizens (such as al-Marri) who are in the U.S. legally. [...] So, then, the President has the power to imprison in a military prison even U.S. citizens inside the U.S. — who are pure civilians, having not been anywhere near a battlefield — indefinitely and without having to charge them with any crime.

Enjoy the rest of your day…

And God Bless America

Registrar Who Won’t Serve Gays Because of Religious Beliefs has Illegitimate Child

Lilian Ladele recently won a suit against Islington Council alleging discrimination after she was punished for refusing to do her job and perform civil partnerships for same-sex couples. A judge ruled that Ladele was within her rights to deny service to homosexuals as a staunch Christian. However, it has now been revealed that Ladele is also a single mother to a child, now 27, born out of wedlock. So Ladele is so firmly Christian that she can’t possibly marry same-sex couples, but not so religious as to remain chaste until married. Presumably God will forgive the sin of extramarital sex but not the “sin” of joining two people together in a loving relationship. The discovery that she has an illegitimate son could cast suspicion on some of the testimony she gave at the discrimination tribunal. The tribunal wrote: “Ms Ladele is a Christian. Her unchallenged evidence was that she holds the orthodox Christian view that marriage is the union of one man and one woman for life to the exclusion of all others and that marriage is the God-ordained place for sexual relations.” “She told us that she believed this to be contrary to God’s instructions that sexual relations belong exclusively between a man and a woman within marriage.”

Ah, yes, moral xians…

In an opinion piece by USA Today’s Tom Krattenmaker, he states:

“The specter of violent religion certainly hangs over us in these times, especially when it comes to certain followers of the world’s two dominant religions. Christian and Muslim conflict-mongers drone on against “Islamic terrorists” and “Christian infidels,” respectively, while violence continues erupting in the name of Islam, and conservative Christian figures in America, like Pat Robertson and John Hagee, urge violent solutions to foreign policy problems. (Robertson, you’ll recall, spoke favorably of assassinating Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, and Hagee, the Texas mega-church minister of falling-out-with-John McCain fame, has repeatedly called for immediate military attacks against Iran.)

Yes, there appears to be considerable truth to the oft-heard claim that Christian-Muslim co-existence must be achieved lest our collective future turn out brief and brutal. Which is why it might appear outrageous to suggest, as I’m about to do, that religion may also be just the catalyst we need to steer us clear of the apparent collision course.

Religion — a solution to the problem of religiously motivated conflict and violence?

While religion has been the cause of many of the world’s violent conflicts and confrontations, Krattenmaker points out that each religion also offers teachings of peace and unity (which we rarely see even within the religious sects and denominations of the same religions themselves.) Krattenmaker suggests that while religion has been the justification for going to war and invading other lands, religion can also end wars. Call me cynical, but when I hear those words I automatically think of Revelation and how fundamentalists from both sides are looking forward to the great and believed unavoidable “final battle” for imaginary heaven and an imagined “renewed” Earth.

Krattenmaker answers his own questions:

Religion — a solution to the problem of religiously motivated conflict and violence? Yes, actually. Because in their best traditions, the world’s two dominant faiths do promote peace, both through their central teachings and the lessons-by-example taught every day by innumerable Muslims and Christians who take their scriptures seriously.

But that depends on WHICH scriptures both sides want to pull out of their ancient texts to take seriously. There is support for both. So, how can we ever expect for both sides to end war and come to any kind of resolution when based upon their contradictory and inconsistent guidebooks?

Krattenmaker sums up his essay with more idealistic questions and answers:

“So how we will know religion in the final analysis? By its peace or by its violence? The scriptures have had their say. It’s now up to the believers — through their words and works — to settle the account.”

I am not holding my breath. And like I said above, I remain cynical . . . pessimistic based on what we have seen from religion thus far. The fundamentalists like the evil parts of their mythology books too much to give them up.

The only hope for this world is with the moderates of both religions. But when it comes down to making a choice, which side will they ultimately choose?

A deeply religious Moroccan woman was denied citizenship to France because her radical practice of Islam has been judged by the highest court in the land to be incompatible with French values. This “32-year-old mother-of-three, identified in news reports as Faiza Mabchour, is the first person to be refused the right to become French on the grounds of cultural behaviour.”

My first inclination was to cheer “Way to go, France!” as Tommy did here. But then on the other hand I also had some second thoughts that if the woman chooses this life for herself, and keeps it to herself, is this fair to deny her citizenship based on extreme religious practices? Some would say yes, if there is a possible threat to the society in which the person wants to live but not assimilate. Many consider radical Islam a threat, as do I (just as I consider any other radical religious beliefs threatening to peace and well-being of a peace-loving society).

I have problems with the burqa or hijab in a free society because in the general public and schools, the veils makes it difficult to identify a person. The Amish dress funny and keep to themselves, but they do not disguise themselves so not to be recognized. Same for the whackadoo Mormon cult that has been in the news recently. These religious fantatics are already living here though, and citizens by birth. But what if they are coming from another country with such radical beliefs? Should we deny them citizenship on grounds of being extreme in their religious beliefs or if they are of cultures radically different from our own?

When a woman to is forced to submit to the oppression of her husband and male relatives, IMO that is absolutely not be acceptable. But, what if the woman chooses this sort of life for herself? Even though we object, should we have the right to intervene or discriminate if this is what she freely chooses this life for herself?

Chuck A sent me a link to Acharya S’s article France: “No Woman Enslavement Allowed”

Acharya writes:

Of course, we can expect to hear from those who believe that women should have the “right” to dress and live in this inhumane and oppressive manner. These “liberal” cries appear to be based entirely on the blatant bigotry which supposes that anything done in the name of religion - no matter how vile - is just peachy keen. If, however, a Western, non-Muslim woman were living in a totally submissive state and forced to cover herself from head to toe not in the name of religion, would not the same people be yelling for intervention, to help this woman free herself of her abusive husband and this patent imprisonment? The woman in this current story would be freed and sent to a domestic violence shelter, with protection from the law against her husband - if she were not imprisoned by so-called religious ideology.

What truly “religious” ideology is based on the mistreatment and enslavement of women? How can there possibly be any good, decent and merciful god behind such egregious abuse of human rights? Millions of women around the world are suffering horribly because of manmade cults seemingly designed specifically for the purpose of enslaving them - yet, where is the outcry from the “bleeding heart” segment of society? “Religion” is not an excuse and should never have been an excuse for the abuse of women and the denial of basic human rights. If one is truly a “bleeding heart” one will feel the pain of these women in their daily enslavement in the name of Islam - and one will demand an end to it NOW, no “ifs,” “ands” or “buts” about it. This enslavement of women is EVIL, period.

Fortunately, France has finally grown a backbone and made this moral decision that could open the door to ending this vile abuse in the name of God. No god who demands abusing women is worthy of the name or of any sort of worship. No ideology that believes women to be inferior or mere sexual objects in need of being enslaved and covered up should be deemed a “religion” and be given special status. Any such ideology must either change or die.

What is your opinion on this issue?