New "Terrorists" mailer: Republicans ask us to insert head in toilet, swallow

Do not call conspiracy all that this people calls conspiracy, and do not fear what it fears, or be in dread. Isaiah 8:12 NRSV

Last night, I attempted a bit of humor here in posting my list of negative labels the Republicans have attempted to affix on Barack Obama. This morning, out comes a massively distributed Republican Party mailer:


And this morning I'm not laughing.

The flier is a load. And we're being asked to swallow it. Once again, the McCain/Palin folks are going back to the Karl Rove playbook of nasty, baseless, negative campaigning. And let's be honest here. What is being implied? "Terrorists don't care who they hurt" the flier's cover says. And below it, fake newsprint headlines reading "Terrorist. Radical. Friend of Obama" and "Obama Close Ties...Terrorist." Get it?! Obama... TERRORIST! The large airplane reminds us of 9/11... Ah. Obama, Al Queida. No logical connection exists, but this is about effective illogic, vile lies being used to stir up hatred and fear.

Inside, just to drill the message home...


Forgive all the exclamation points which follow, as I'm a bit peeved this morning...

First starts the whining over Obama actually wanting to talk to terrorists instead of blowing their countries to hell! "Barack Obama Thinks Terrorists Need a Good Talking to." OH MY GAWD! He might actually favor diplomacy over attacking nations without provocation! So if diplomats are terrorists, as opposed to bomb-wielding nations, I'm left wondering what, in light of that definition, Al Queida would be called. Using this Republican pretzel logic, Perhaps Osama bin Laden deserves the Nobel Peace Prize!

"Barack Obama. Not Who You Think He Is." screams the banner along the bottom edge of this masterpiece of McCarthyite defecation. Well, I know who Barack Obama is. He's an American, he's a Christian, and he's a man who has spent his entire life in a disciplined effort to become a positive, unifying leader. His story (as evidenced in his two books) should (and I pray will be) an enduring part of our national legacy. Liars are fryers, baby.

I also know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, who John McCain, Sarah Palin, and the Republicans are. They are desperate people who are going to use the politics of fear and hate to attempt to win. This is frustrating, and scarey. Why? Because it worked in the past two elections. And despite Obama's current lead in the polls, I for one am not at all convinced that lead will hold up.

I have two messages for readers of this puny little BlueChristian blog.

One: This is short and sweet. Anyone who supports Barack Obama's candidacy for President needs to respond to this attack immediately by donating money to Obama's campaign. If you are really ticked at this, the Obama folks have a page just for us so we can make a specific, powerful statement. I'm going to do so today. I hope you will as well.

Two: Evangelical readers currently supporting John McCain and (perhaps even more enthusiastically) Sarah Palin. Can you step back for a moment and ask yourself why you would support a campaign capable of flinging this kind of hate-mongering poop? Can you ask yourself about your own theology -- and here I'm thinking about loving one's neighbor and loving one's God vs. embracing end times narratives from Hal Lindsay, Tim LaHaye, and such? The Republicans are counting on you as their base! That's the narrative here. They want you to be frightened of an American leader, a fellow Christian.

Let's get right down to it: they want you to believe Barack Obama is a closet Muslim terrorist. Well, do you? Honestly? You've seen him in the debates. Do you think he is anti-American? Do you think he is part of some massive conspiracy? Well, if you do, go ahead and vote for the Republicans. But if you sense they are lying about Barack, why would you trust them? We've been lied to for eight years. Here is a man with whom we may not agree on everything, but who has made repeated and thoughtful overtures to Evangelicals despite being slapped down in most of those efforts.

Who are we Evangelicals? That's what I'd like to know. I know who Barack is, and I know who the Republicans are... I've had years and years to watch them scream about abortion, then get into office and appoint pro-abortion justices. Go figure. I've seen them create a narrow litmus test set of issues (abortion and same-sex marriage) from which we are told to make every political decision. That day is over, people. Jesus cared about a LOT more than that. Read Matthew 25. Read the prophets, who along with immorality condemn Sodom and Gommorah for their mistreatment of the poor.

Evangelicals can no longer afford to believe the Republican version of reality. It ignores massive injustices outside that neat and small list of "family values." Affordable housing in my neighborhood is a "family value"... one ignored by the Republicans. And what about all the single parents -- most of them women -- who are more vulnerable than ever in this terrible economic recession we're experiencing? The Republicans say "pro-life," yet assault the poor repeatedly by stripping away programs offering rural and inner-city families hope.

No. No more. Evangelicals, are you willing to remain tools in the hands of hate mongers? We always seem to be on the wrong side of these things. From the days of slavery and lynchings, where entire huge denominations supported slavery (on what they called "biblical" grounds) to today, when those same huge denominations support the oppression and marginalization of women by men -- using the very same bible verses they used in the slave days -- we remain reactionary instead of biblically revolutionary. Where is that third way?

Barack Obama will not be the solution to all of this. Far from it. He's one man. And at times we may even find ourselves having to play the role of prophet against a man we voted for. That is the strange and salty role Christians are supposed to play. But hating is as unchristian as it gets. And the Republican Party's willingness to be hateful, to lie openly over and over again in hopes that their vicious assault on Barack Obama will give them the White House, should be a prime reason we stop being the "Republican base."

Base has another definition: "stresses the ignoble and may suggest cruelty, treachery, greed, or grossness." That, to me, sounds applicable to the Republican Party's treatment of Barack Obama. Can we, as the people of God, the Bride of Christ, continue to be part of that "base" (in both senses of the word) political crowd?

I of course have my own answer, but what matters is your answer.

All the Nasty Things They've Called Obama: A List

I just couldn't help making a list of all the negative labeling Republicans have attempted to paste on Barack Obama. Why? Because they sometimes make me laugh, other times want to scream in frustration. If readers have more of this nonsense, please add it and I'll update this list. Try to add sources if it's something we all haven't already heard.

First, the oldie goldies:


Socialist

Do any of the nimblewits posting this term in reference to Obama/Biden even know what a socialist actually IS? McCain/Palin have defined it this way: "spreading the wealth around." Whoa! Mommy, there's a socialist under my bed spreading wealth around! Okay, just to help, here's the dictionary definition:

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done. (Webster's)

In other words, people, it's exactly what George Bush just did when he partially nationalized our banks! And McCain's a socialist, too, since he voted yes on this bail-out. By the way, as far as McCain/Palin's own definition, "spreading the wealth around"... uh, that's what taxes do. Like you know, fund building highways or AIDS medicine for Africa or... bombs to drop on Iraq.


Communist

See above. Except worse.


Liberal

Dang. Liberal. Liberal means bad, right? Like they eat people and sacrifice cats in their basements. I think. Well, read the actual Webster's definition:

[O]ften capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity b: a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c: a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties dcapitalized : the principles and policies of a Liberal party.

Hmm. Other than (a) the gold standard, and (b) the essential goodness of humanity, which all politicians believe in as long as we vote for them but none of us fully believe when pondering our ballots, I'd say that's a pretty Hallmark Card definition. Of course, if McCain doesn't like civil liberties, perhaps he could speak up now and save everyone the headache of voting for him come election day. After all, when it turned out Dubya didn't like political and civil liberties so much, it was too late for us to do much about it.


Extreme Liberal

This is a liberal with tattoos and piercings. Sometimes riding a Harley. Wait. Isn't John McCain the one that took his wife to Sturgis, SD, and suggested she run for a motorcycle momma award? Hm, begging for an expose...


Un-American

Everyone knows what this means. Anyone living in America who does not appear to agree with my interpretation of what being an American is.


"Boy"

"I'm going to tell you something: That boy's finger does not need to be on the button... He could not make a decision in that simulation that related to a nuclear threat to this country." - 49 yr old Geoff Davis, Kentucky congressman, about 46 yr old Barack Obama

Yep. In 2008. Nice how, no matter what, some things stay the same.


"not one of us"

See above. Almost any of the above, actually.


Antichrist

Coolest evil label ever. We "liberal communist socialist" people also use the word at times, though usually with a touch more irony than our conservative counterparts. The trouble with the label is, of course, that it is usually applied to fairly decent folks. Like Rush Limbaugh.

-=-

Second, some 2008 firsts, for a Presidential election at least:

Muslim
and/or
Arab

The obvious problem with both of these terms is that they contain a double insult; first, that Obama is being called something he is not (either Muslim or Arab), second that Muslims and / or Arabs are Un-Americans by default. Oh, and did anyone clue the Muslim/Arab haters that massive numbers of Muslims are not Arab (Indonesia, anyone?) while large numbers of Arabs are not Muslim. I apologize, however, for being factual.

One more thing, haters: a Muslim American could be President one day, and none of us would have to worry about head scarves or jihads... yep. This Evangelical Christian is telling you, not asking. The vast majority of Muslim Americans actually love their country! What malevolent idiocy to spread these lies or -- just as shocking -- to *believe* the lies! Or, as a 1970s era me would have said, "DUH!" The Bible would say "Love your neighbor as yourself..." but we're not gonna get biblical here because it might require cutting the locks from abandoned minds.


"friend of terrorists"

Bill Ayers Bill Ayers BillAyersBillAyersBill billayersbillayersbillayersbillayers bill -- aw, shuddUP!!

Hokay, well, that's about all I got. But just for fun, let's put them all together:

Barack Obama is a socialist/Arab/communist/Muslim/liberal/extremeliberal/unAmerican/"Boy"/not one of us/Antichrist!!

(And a friend of Bill Ayers BillAyersbillayersbillayersbillayers.)

And there, ladies and gentleman, we have the entirety of the Republican platform for 2008!

Cool Tool: Obama's "Check your tax savings!" machine

So you want to find out how much tax money you'd get back under Barack Obama's tax plan vs. John McCain's? Wonder no more. The Obama campaign provides a handy, 30 seconds of time tax plan tool to find out. Or, you can just check it out right here!

Campaigning via Conspiracy Theory: Ayers, Acorn, and Obama the Alien

I have written quite a bit about conspiracy theories, most of them having to do with urban myths regarding "Satanic Ritual Abuse," alleged inter-generational Satanists who brainwash their followers and sacrifice adults and children to the devil. A major feature of almost all these myths requires the existence of a secret super-cell of Satanists, often said to be world leaders. [Photo at left from "Conspiracylol.com"]

During the 1980s and on into the 1990s, I wrote various articles exploring the Satanist myths. Most of them promulgated by (sigh) my fellow Evangelicals and/or (in the case of the infamous Michelle Remembers) Catholics. I also took part in co-researched and written articles (plus one book, Selling Satan: Mike Warnke and the Evangelical Media), which exposed various "former satanists" and/or "former victims of satanists" as fakes.

And as a result, I realized that questioning everything anyone told me was a pretty good idea. That went double when it came to conspiracy theories, which as incredible stories demanded incredible evidence to verify. Or so my suspicious mind works. Heck, I'm so hard to convince I actually believe John Kennedy was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald. Alone.

Go with me just a little way on this.

Why, for instance, do we believe conspiracy theories. Or rather, believe some while disbelieving others? After all, by definition, a successful conspiracy has no evidential trail left to follow.

I think we believe conspiracy theories that agree with our own way of seeing, of understanding, and of locating evil. Locating? Yes, this is the single most important feature of a conspiracy theory. Evil must have a location. And, that location must be with other entities, almost always human, who are "other" than I and those closest to me. Commies (Joe McCarthy's insanity, remember?). Blacks (every black man wants to rape a white woman). Even whites... AIDS was designed to eliminate blacks, you know. And so on. There has to be an evil other.

One of the best examples of this is found in the painful, even terrifying novel by Bernard Malamud, The Fixer. A Russian-Jewish peasant finds his life in peril due to the false anti-Semitic myth that Jews often sacrificed babies in secret ceremonies. The novel is, of course, rooted in the reality of what Christians often believed about their Jewish neighbors (and in the reality of violence committed against Jews by such Christians).

Another example of this lies in the current distribution of a rabidly anti-Islamic video 18 million households nationwide (though particularly in "swing states" currently drifting toward Democrat Barack Obama). Radical Islam, the videos claim, has been discovered to have an inside plan to take over America, a plan led by seemingly innocent American leaders. By video's end, one suspects that all Islam is radical, and (by necessity) nearly all American Muslims (as well as Arab Christians) may be "one of them."

And of course playing into this conspiratorial theme above are threads from the Republican Party (via both the McCain/Palin campaign directly and others backing them but not officially connected). "Who is Barack Obama?" one McCain ad asks. "A friend of terrorist Ayers," is the answer, the "Ayers" of course not really being necesssary other than as a cover for running such an unhinged conspiratorial message. That beat goes on as of today via "Robo-calls" (automated calls) by the Republican National Committee:

Hello. I'm calling for John McCain and the RNC because you need to know that Barack Obama has worked closely with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, whose organization bombed the U.S. capitol, the Pentagon, a judge's home and killed Americans. And Democrats will enact an extreme leftist agenda if they take control of Washington. Barack Obama and his Democratic allies lack the judgment to lead our country. This call was paid for by McCain-Palin 2008 and the Republican National Committee at [of course I deleted the number!].

The above illustrates the thing with conspiracy theories: Most conspiracy theories make no sense!

Break the above quote down, and it becomes a series of unconnected factoids which require the listener's own bias to make cohere into a single unified story. Obama knows a guy. The guy, when Obama was 8, was involved with the '60s radical group, Weather Underground. The group blew some stuff up and killed two people. Democrats will enact an "an extreme leftist agenda" if they "take control" of Washington. Obama and his terrorist/commie buddies lack the judgement to lead the USA.

Each sentence in itself is independent of the previous one or the next one. The parts do not make one whole, but instead are illogically thrown together. The reader processes them and by so doing experiences either an instinctive "a ha!" moment or (I hope) just as instinctive recoils from the attempt to create fear, and an explanation for that fear, at Obama's expense.

My most riveting moment re the absolute non-rationality of conspiracy theory came while interviewing a parent of one of the children allegedly abused by supposed satanist Ray Buckey (the now-infamous McMartin Preschool case, where both Ray and his mother were found not guilty). Looking very somber, this upper-middle class mother told me about how one child at McMartin was abused by Raymond... who at the time was over 100 miles away from where the abuse occurred.

Startled, I attempted to correct her. "But Ray was 100 miles away... he'd have had to be two places at the same time!"

She nodded understandingly. "Oh, yes. Those Satanists can do anything."

So, apparently, can the Republicans, at least where inventing conspiracy theories are concerned. Consider the latest one involving ACORN, a social activist group with whom I have worked a few times (though years back). The group among other things is known for regularly doing voter registration drives, paying folks to get others signed up to vote. The obvious happens. A small number of hired registrars end up falsifying voter cards, creating voters who do not exist.

So what does the Republican Party say about ACORN... with who their own candidate John McCain has worked in the past?

Allegedly, ACORN is involved in subverting the nation's voting process, despite the fact that non-existent voters can't very well vote. And, should someone show up to attempt voting for them, there is the small matter of signature comparison required by most polling places (all of them in Illinois, for instance).

Meanwhile, the Republican Party is attempting to strip new voters from Ohio's (and other swing states') registration logs. That's no conspiracy. That, for the Republican Party, seems business as usual.

And speaking of business as usual, how about yet another Republican Conspiracy Theory (RCT's we can call 'em) regarding the Democrats having started this financial mess by allowing Freddie Mac to lend to poor borrowers? John McCain's attempt to paint Barack Obama as fomenter of class warfare seems to be the classic case of man pointing one finger at other man while pointing three more back at himself.

Conspiracies in real life inevitably fall apart for the most pedestrian of reasons. A secret may be safe with one human, but once a second, third, or fourth human is included, the conspirators have the devil of a time not leaking it to someone.

Anyway, my favorite conspiracy theory about Barack Obama is that we know so little about him that it won't be until he is elected we find out his real name is Bxqz Oxynana from the planet Xerx, and that he's here to enslave humanity. Turns out Xerxians like nothing better than human beings... lightly toasted with a dab of Zyx spread.

Don't believe it? Disprove it, then!! Remember, beware the Alien Obama! Vote for Obama and we're ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!!!

Uh, pass me the Zyx.

Paul Krugman's Nobel Prize for Economics: More Good News for Obama Campaign

Today Paul Krugman won the 2008 Nobel Prize for Economics. Today the markets are up. Why? Well, part of that answer has to do with that same Paul Krugman, Princeton University scholar and New York Times columnist, and what Krugman has been advocating. Oh, did I mention Mr. Krugman appeared yesterday on "Meet the Press" as an avid supporter of Barack Obama, and has been doing so in various other media outlets? Did I mention he supports Obama primarily because of the latter's economic policies, which he contrasts with the Bush/McCain policies (summed up by CNN)?:

Whereas U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson rejected a "sort of temporary part-nationalization" involving governments giving financial institutions more money in return for a share of ownership, the British government "went straight to the heart of the problem ... with stunning speed."

Krugman said the major European economies have "in effect declared themselves ready to follow Britain's lead, injecting hundreds of billions of dollars into banks while guaranteeing their debts."

"And whaddya know," Krugman continued, "Mr. Paulson -- after arguably wasting several precious weeks -- has also reversed course, and now plans to buy equity stakes rather than bad mortgage securities."

Today's rise in stock values is being attributed primarily to the European approach in this economic crisis. Paul Krugman's Nobel Prize is one more sign that Barack Obama, not John McCain, is listening to the right experts. The market's rise is another sign of the same.

Why it is wrong -- twice! -- to say Barack Obama is "Arab"

This shouldn't need to be noted, but calling Barack Obama an "Arab" is a charge which says a whole lot about the person mouthing it. The short summation would be this:

First, Barack Obama is Kenyan (African) and Anglo-American. Thus, the business of him being Arab is incorrect.

Second, though he is not Arab there would be nothing wrong with him being Arab. Could the USA have a President of Arab descent? Apparently not, if we listen to the Right. That's clearly racism, but no one is calling them on it yet.

Dear God, what a stupid election this has turned into. Right Wing blogs continue this crapulous sort of racism (google "Obama Arab" if you don't believe me). The hate mongering is getting more and more shrill as the election progresses.

The news is not, however, all bad. There are some signs that John McCain is beginning to tire of the rabid negativity his campaign has embraced over the past few weeks, even months. He ended up having to defend his opponent after a woman said she couldn't trust Obama. "Obama is Arab," she said. Senator McCain shook his head no, then took the mic from the woman. "I want to be President of the United States, and obviously I don't want Senator Obama to be. But I have to tell you he is a decent person and you don't have to be scared [of him] as President of the United States." At this point, the crowd began to boo their own candidate! [CNN Video of Sen. McCain's comments, below, or use link at left]



Yet it must be remembered that McCain's campaign has systematically sought out this anger in an attempt to solidify their base and -- as done successfully in the 2000 and 2004 elections -- use negativity against another candidate in order to push down that candidate's poll numbers. Obama's race, his name, and his having lived overseas as a small child all seem to suggest a special vulnerabilty.

It remains to be seen if the McCain campaign has stopped the hate mongering. If so, good on them, though it may be too late to undo much of the damage. If they waffle -- even a little -- expect every news source, blog, and armchair pundit to notice.

Again, as an Evangelical Christian, I expect to hear from my fellow Evangelicals about this issue. Racism against Arab-Americans, many of whom may be Muslim but who are also Christian or even Atheist, is absolutely sin, wrong, a violation of the heart of the Gospel. "Love your neighbor as yourself and the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind."

That includes Arabs and / or Muslims. As Evangelicals, we know that Christ also died for them, and that they are created in the image of God, and (again) are our neighbors. Racism is Satan's domain.

Fellow Evangelicals, Will You Please Speak Out Against McCain/Palin Hate-Mongering?

I am excited to see my candidate doing so well in pre-election polls. But I am afraid as well, seeing a swelling of anger and verbalized violence among many of John McCain's core supporters. His base, I am told, contains nearly 3 out of 4 Evangelical Christians. And that deeply troubles me. Are Evangelicals in the Republican party calling on their candidates to stop encouraging their audiences toward hateful words... and potentially actions?

"Kill him!" shouted one audience member after Gov. Sarah Palin again accused Barack Obama of "ties" to former terrorist Bill Ayers. Did the man want Ayers or Obama dead? And was Gov. Palin aware of what her jingoist repetition of this non-news was creating in the audience? "TERRORIST!" yelled another man during a McCain speech which also focused on the alleged Obama/Ayers connections.

Ayers, a member of the violent Weather Underground in the 1960s, went to prison back then for his part in a bombing incident. At the time, Barack Obama was eight years old. Obama met Ayers through a Republican (one who contributed to John McCain, it turns out) as part of a committee aimed at school children in Chicago. Ayers is now a professor at the University of Chicago.

But let's really look at why, and what, John McCain is doing here. I'm not asking you to vote for my candidate, mind you. I'm just asking you to stop McCain/Palin from creating a dangerous environment and encouraging dangerous minds.

Even someone as calm as commentator David Gergen worries that the Republican Party is creating a potential for violence with their current anti-Obama crusade.

"There is this free floating sort of whipping around anger that could really lead to some violence. I think we're not far from that," he told CNN's Anderson Cooper on Thursday. "I really worry when we get people -- when you get the kind of rhetoric that you're getting at these rallies now. I think it's really imperative that the candidates try to calm people down." [CNN]

Consider this new McCain/Palin slogan: "Who Is Barack Obama?"

Could this question be seriously asked of anyone who was named "John" and didn't have the middle name Barack has, or the funny-sounding (to many American ears) last name?

Could this question be seriously asked of a white candidate?

And SHOULD this question be asked by Evangelical Christians, even those who may be disheartened by their own candidate's slip in the polls?

No, it should not be. We know who Barack Obama is, and whether or not one chooses to vote for him, the hate mongering campaign currently being mounted by McCain/Palin's ticket is outside the bounds of propriety, decency, and -- can I clearly say this and be heard? -- Christian discipleship. We are called to be Jesus followers. Even in the midst of disagreeing over which candidate is better for our nation, we must not dishonor the name of Jesus Christ by allowing a hateful, xenophobic rage to enter our discourse.

Rage is a self-righteous anger which excuses its own excess. Unbelievable acts of horror -- including 9/11, I might add -- occurred as the result of arrogant rage. This type of anger dehumanizes its targets. Once dehumanized, they become puppets in the hands of hate, to have done to them whatever the hater in his/her own distorted sense of duty finds to do.

This election is historic. We've seen the first black man ever nominated by a national party as its candidate for President. Unfortunately, we're also learning this election season that the old American demons can be recalled. Rage is a tool, but so is Christian charity. Disciples of Jesus, whomever you support, make sure your calling is manifest in how you support them. And here's an Obama campaign response to "Who Is Barack Obama?" -- a video that shows us the same guy we've been watching all election long. We know who Barack is. Whoever you support, stop the hate.

"That One"

Doug Kmiec, Prolife Legal Counsel under Reagan and George H.W. Bush, Campaigns for Barack Obama

This radio ad, now running in Ohio and possibly elsewhere, offers the views of Douglas Kmiec, professor of Constitutional Law at Pepperdine University, head of the Office of Legal Counsel in the Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, and author of Can A Catholic Support Him? Asking the Big Question about Barack Obama.

The Matthew 25 Network is funding this ad, and as someone involved with that network I'd like to suggest Evangelicals for Obama consider supporting their effort. See below the video for a link to do so.



Contribute to the Matthew 25 Network's ongoing efforts.

Uh-Oh! Reviewing Sarah Palin's "Pro-life" Position in Light of Couric Interview

I'm a bit ashamed of myself that I didn't catch this in the now-infamous Katie Couric interviews with Sarah Palin. We all heard the gaffs and soundbites... but what about some of the more substantial answers Gov. Palin did come up with?

Beliefnet's Steve Waldman suggests something startling: "Amidst Her Dodging, Sarah Palin Contradicts the Republican Platform on Abortion."

Waldman notes, in a number of cases during the fairly lengthy exchange on abortion between Couric and Palin, that the Governor seemed to actually hold a pro-choice position!

For instance, Couric asks: "If a 15-year-old is raped by her father, you believe it should be illegal for her to get an abortion. Why?" Gov. Palin does not answer the "why" but she does offer this as her punchline: "I would counsel to choose life." The unavoidable conclusion one would reach there is that Palin supports choice, but counsels that choice be for life.

But there's more. Gov. Palin continues:

"I would like to see a culture of life in this country. But I would also like to see taking it one step further. Not just saying I am pro-life, and I want fewer and fewer abortions in this country. But I want, then, those women who find themselves in circumstances that are absolutely less than ideal, for them to be supported for adoptions to be made easier. For more support given to foster parents and adoptive families. That is my personal opinion on this."

I would note this sounds stunningly similar to Barack Obama! There is not one mention of legislating abortion out of existence, of overturning Roe v Wade, and in fact her language -- "I want fewer and fewer abortions in this country" -- sounds almost word for word like Barack Obama (except with less finesse). Consider these comments by Obama, made April 13, 2008 at Messiah College. He is responding to a question on finding any common ground between pro-choice and pro-life polarities:

"I absolutely think we can find common ground. And it requires a couple of things. It requires us to acknowledge that..

1. There is a moral dimension to abortion, which I think that all too often those of us who are pro-choice have not talked about or tried to tamp down. I think that's a mistake because I think all of us understand that it is a wrenching choice for anybody to think about.

2. People of good will can exist on both sides. That nobody wishes to be placed in a circumstance where they are even confronted with the choice of abortion. How we determine what's right at that moment, I think, people of good will can differ.

And if we can acknowledge that much, then we can certainly agree on the fact that we should be doing everything we can to avoid unwanted pregnancies that might even lead somebody to consider having an abortion." [italics added]

Back to Couric's interview with Sarah Palin:

Couric: So you want more support so women have more options, or girls have more options. But you also think it should be illegal, that there should be no punishment if a woman does break the law...

Palin: I would like to see more women given more support so that those of us who say, "You know, a culture of life is what we believe." Is best ... for human kind, you know, to respect the sanctity of every human life. And to understand ... that we live in a pretty messed up world sometimes.

When you consider what's going on in this world. The most promising and good ingredients in this world ... is a child. The hope that a child brings. And just understanding that. Being near and dear to my heart. I want to do all that I can to reduce the number abortions.

And to usher in that culture of life. And in my respect for the other side of this issue, I have not spoken with one woman who do, may disagree with me on, when abortions could or should be allowed, not one woman has disagreed, as we sit down and rationally talk about ... the common goal we have, and that is to see fewer and fewer abortions. And to provide more and more women support in this world.

Palin again seems to echo a Democratic understanding of the abortion issue rather than supporting the Republican Platform here. Gov. Palin keeps referencing a "culture of life," but remains within a paradigm of choice. That is, a culture where all involved seek to have more support for women and fewer and fewer abortions. Again, this sounds quite similar to Barack Obama.

Couric isn't done yet:

Couric: But, ideally, you think it should be illegal ...

Palin: If you ...

Couric: ...for a girl who was raped or the victim of incest to get an abortion?

Palin: I'm saying that, personally, I would counsel the person to choose life, despite horrific, horrific circumstances that this person would find themselves in."

Waldman once again notes that again Palin is reiterating a pro-choice position here. I would suggest, for further clarification, that very few pro-choicers think abortion is a "good" choice -- rather, most would readily call it a "bad" choice, a last resort which (to them) might be necessary but is not frivolous nor painless (physically or psychologically) to the mother making such a choice. There is nothing in Palin's responses to Couric to contradict that sort of pro-choice reasoning.

The interview continues:

And, um, if you're asking, though, kind of foundationally here, should anyone end up in jail for having an ... abortion, absolutely not. That's nothing I would ever support.

Did Palin mean just the mothers who abort, or also the doctors? In light of her apparent inability to communicate clearly on many topics, she may have meant the former. But one is left with what at best is an ambiguous response. I'm left wondering if these responses are yet further evidence of a disingenuousness on the part of the Republican candidates. In short, I think the blurring of pro-life vs. pro-choice positions is being done intentionally by Gov. Palin here, for reasons entirely having to do with polling numbers and the McCain campaign's desire to draw in more women voters... many of whom are pro-choice.

But here, in an exchange over the "morning after" pill, is where Gov. Palin does in fact overtly contradict the Republican Party platform on abortion. It takes Couric three tries to get an answer to her very simple question, but she does finally get it:

Couric: Some people have credited the morning-after pill as for decreasing the number of abortions. How do you feel about the morning after pill?

Palin: Well ...I'm all for contraception. And I'm all for any preventative measures that are legal and safe and should be taken. But, Katie, again and we can go round and round about the abortion issue, but I am one to seek a culture of life. I am one to believe that life starts at the moment of conception. And I would like to see ...

Couric: And so you don't believe in the morning-after pill.

Palin: I would like to see fewer and fewer abortions in this world. And, again, I haven't spoken with anyone who disagrees with my position on that.

Couric: I'm sorry. I just want to ask you again. Do you not support or do you condone or condemn the morning after pill?

Palin: Personally, and this is isn't McCain-Palin policy ...

Couric: That's OK. I'm just asking you.

Palin: But, personally, I would not choose to participate in that kind of contraception. It ...

Couric: Do you think it should be illegal?

Palin: I don't think that it should necessarily be illegal.

So, for all my fellow pro-lifers out there that feel so compelled to vote McCain/Palin due to the pro-life issue, I hope this is one more reason to reconsider that concept. And again, I thank Mr. Waldman for drawing my attention to this interview.

Daily Kos: Calling Gothard Cultic is not only foolish, but dangerous

Before I get to the Daily Kos, and my beef with them, let me offer a preamble re Bill Gothard.

In case you missed my last vent on the subject, I continue to track Republican VP Candidate Sarah Palin's connections with Bill Gothard, someone I've long criticized as being anti-womanist, a control freak (his teachings on obedience vs. "willfulness" have no biblical resonance as far as I can see, despite his proof-texting), and an enabler to some of the worst teachings in Evangelical/Christian fundamentalist circles. On top of that, his ideas on music are demonstrably uninformed (the augmented seventh a demonic chord? C'mon!) and his teachings on family structure plainly extra-biblical (that is, add-ons with no real biblical justification). None of this stops him from posturing as perhaps "the" authority on these matters. (You pay for the priveledge of being subjected to his teachings, by the way... maybe not quite as steep a surcharge as Scientology. Okay, so I'm venting...)

In short, Gothard freaks me out and always has.

[below: Edward Munch's "VampireII"]

One more story: A big reason I love my and my fellowship's denomination, the Evangelical Covenant Church, has to do with former ECC President Paul Larsen. My appreciation for him was cemented after he told me of his one and only time attending a Bill Gothard "Institute on Basic Youth Conflicts" seminar. Gothard spoke of an allegedly bible-based pyramiding authority structure, in which women were demeaned and disempowered and told that males around them held authority from God to govern over them. Somewhere in the discourse, Paul began looking around at the pastors and leaders listening to Gothard's spiel. "I was shocked," he told me, "how no one was reacting, how many were even nodding in agreement." And soon after, Paul Larsen could take no more. He stood up and yelled at the audience, "Did you hear what he said?! Are you just going to sit there and listen and say nothing?!" This was particularly in reaction to Gothard's incredibly rigid ideas on women in leadership (the ECC holds that women are fully empowered biblically in ministry and in marriage, roles be, uh, darned). When no one reacted to him, he walked out on Gothard's nonsense. "I couldn't believe that biblically trained men would sit and listen to such ignorance," Larsen sighed.

Again, I really do not like Gothard's teachings. I am a Christian feminist (or pro-feminist, if you prefer), and with abortion being my one sticking point, feel far more kinship with feminists than with hierarchical Christians.

All that said, I stumbled across a post on the Daily Kos, which although it does a great job bringing out some of the weirdness re Gothard, also starts off by labeling him with the "c" word. We're talking "cult" here, as in the article's title: Former Cincinnati city commissioner outs Gothard cult. A few alleged "experts" on cults are listed -- experts that noted anthropologist and historian of religions Gordon Melton suggests are "experts in nothing" -- since "cults" as a category does not exist. Instead, one calls someone a "cultist" in an attempt to marginalize, demean, and disempower them. Sounds pretty Republican to me, and I'm sad indeed to see a liberal-leaning blog push that direction.

We who support "Change" in the most positive sense of that word should take a tip from Obama's responses to the dismissive, demeaning, and outright contemptuous treatment he received from John McCain in their debate a few days ago. Obama's refusal to take personal offense and keep things focused on issues of substance not only reflects biblical wisdom but also served him well in the polls--his post-debate national lead has increased over his rival for the Presidency.

At any rate, one should read the article from Daily Kos -- it has some very telling content apart from the name-calling. Too bad the "c" word was used, as it taints a post which would have stood on its own factual merits without either "cults" or "cult experts."

Hopeful lesson? Forego the usage of terms which, closely examined, are as vacuuous and vicious as the term "ni**er." Cult is one such word. We who claim the label "progressive" or / and "liberal" should watch our own language closely for signs that we are depersonalizing others in a potentially reactionary use of words. Yes, the left can lose its way in the heat of a moment. I'm sure a student of this blog might find places I myself have done so. All I can suggest is that we help one another by pointing out these cases of "demonization via language" and attempt to root them out. Tell the truth about our opponents, but -- repeating myself - take a page from Barack Obama. Senator Obama forcefully engages on matters of political doctrine and fact, but overall has more consistently refused to stoop to the level of personal contempt than any other Presidential candidate in my memory.

Let us follow his example.

Oh, and in the service of full self-disclosure, I should note that my own fellowship has been also targeted with the "cult" brush by some of the Kos-mentioned experts, who also call me a "cult apologist." Whatever. For more on my thoughts re the "c" word, see my old Cornerstone magazine article, "Reconceptualizing the word 'cults.'"

Hey, did I call Bill Gothard a "control freak"? Uh, yes. Guess others will have to figure out if that is fact-based or not... I think it is.

[Correction added: I'm an idiot. I said the painting was by Klimpt... it is a Munch. Duh.]

Sarah Palin Tied to Radical Anti-womanist Bill Gothard? There Went the Women's Vote!

Salon magazine today notes that Sarah Palin's mayorship of her home town reveals connections to an old name among Evangelical heavies. Before there was Family guru James Dobson, there was... Bill Gothard. While the article focuses on Palin's usage of a "secular" (though maybe not so secular) spin off from Gothard's organization, my own interest is in what depth of connection exists between Palin and Gothard... and / or his teachings on family and women.

Remember Bill Gothard and his Institute on Basic Youth Conflicts? Today, the organization is called Institute in Basic Life Principles, though the former name is still used as part of the "Basic" curriculum. The materials Gothard's group churned out in the 1960s and 1970s featured micro-management of every aspect of a Christian family's existence. I recall, and this may upset some folks, literally laughing until I cried over various illustrations regarding the exact way a woman's blouse should look, her hair should look, and her make-up (or lack thereof, actually) should look. I'd reproduce one of these drawings here, except that Gothard doesn't take kindly to folks reproducing any of his materials without paying for them.

I wouldn't laugh today as I did then, knowing more about what women have suffered at the hands of such male arrogance in the Church. In fact, I'd probably shred the pamphlet. That's me exercising my own Christian authority, Mr. Gothard. I authoritatively say that your treatment of women is not the work of Christ, nor in keeping with the heart of Christ, and that you have gravely injured not only women but the men who love them.

But I would laugh still over Gothard's music lessons, where he with all seriousness warns against rock music's evilness and then -- I kid you not -- suggests that certain chords on the scale are bad. Like, for instance, the augmented seventh! For real. Oh, and also any sort of syncopation is bad. Try this... tap out four beats on a table. Then tap them again, emphasizing the first and third. Then do it again emphasizing the second and forth. Well, the latter is really not good, according to Gothard. Why? 'Cuz that's syncopation, man! You might feel your body or something! WHOA!

What again isn't funny is how Gothard conceptualizes the Family. His ultra-militarist, top-down, male-centric model bears no discernable resemblance at all to the family I (and I pray most other!) Christians see in Scripture. Bill apparently channeled this stuff direct from the throne of God, because it has zero biblical or theological backing, despite his continual usage of verses with little to no application to the topic he's touting. For instance...

He fervently claims that a couple who marry without their parents' permission cannot be blessed by God. Note, this refers to a couple regardless of that couple's age, and also regardless of what the parents' set of beliefs is! I suppose a racist set of parents could, under Gothard's teaching, permanently prevent their Anglo daughter from marrying an African-American. Or, one might suggest, an Atheist parent with a mean streak could forbid her born-again daughter from marrying a fellow Christian. Did anyone ever, I wonder, mention to Bill that sometimes honoring someone requires disobeying them, not baaaing like a sheep and doing what one's told? Example: Suicidal parent telling the child to get the gun from the cupboard, the child obeying but of course hoping the parent doesn't decide to make suicide homocide as well... BANG!

The obtuseness of what "honoring" one's parents means vs. an adult obeying their parent's every whim should be obvious. Unfortunately for Gothard, it is not. Willful ignorance, it is called. And how does such a man get the authority he still, after all this time, wields? Ask the Republicans.

I hope and pray Evangelicals ponder deeply the parallels between Bill Gothard's blind self-referential teachings and the Republicans' blind self-referential approach to governance. For me, the parallels are screaming to be noticed.

Meanwhile, the question here is if Sarah Palin, being pitched to us as an empowered woman, believes the viciously anti-woman lies Gothard is spreading? Sigh...

Bleeding and Angry

No comment needed for this lyric, finished today.

Bleeding and Angry
(c) 2008, Jon Trott


Oh Jesus when I loved you as a young man
I didn’t know how many blood red nights would pass
I thought my life would fill with joy and light
But that cross you promised cuts my heart like glass
This country that I love like sky and rain and hope
Has used your name and gone insane
Fake wars that are too real, Abu Ghraib electric rope
Every bomb, kill and maim, takes Your name in vain
And the people you call yours are bastards, I am one
Who kiss the butt of power, who think right’s a loaded gun

I shouldn’t say these things
I’m not feeling full of faith
I’m filled with tears and indignation
Until we stop this I don’t feel safe
I’m… bleeding and angry
I’m… bleeding and angry

"This is God’s will," they say, "this is love this is right."
The ticking clock reads just ‘round midnight
"We’re good you’re bad you’re false we’re true"
Little palin’ cheerleader spreads their hate of you
Doing the McRovian hula and you’re the hoop
A flag wrapped Jesus, Abu Ghraib, devil’s in the coop
Country First, which means Us First and We Rule
While Jesus is dyin’ on a New Orleans stoop
And the people you call yours are the bastards -- I am one!
Who kiss their own constructions as God’s True Son

God you don't have to hear my scream
But god-talk will not make Pilate's bloody hands clean
Nothing I’ve known is half as good as you, but –
Jesus, wake your Church from this myopic dream
I’m… bleeding and angry
I’m… bleeding and angry

The politics of change crushed by politics of fear
and I cry in my sleep at night afraid Hope's no longer here.
Wickedness seems so universal, good so small.
I know I verge on blasphemy, in the suffering of it all.
Give me your eyes, heal my self-inflicted wounds.
Help me to keep carrying my tiny cross of dooms.
Intelligence and wisdom often walk so far apart
Humility is what I need, a human bleeding heart
I know these truths, adhere to You, Word of God
But Jesus I'm angry, Jesus I'm bleeding, how do I start?

Save my neighbor, Love of my Life.
Save my friends and children and wife.
But dear Lord Jesus, Save my enemy
And if I still seem worth it, rescue me...
I'm bleeding and angry.
I'm bleeding and angry.

Just Wondering: Why Do Evangelicals Embrace the Republican Party's Demonization of Others?

My life, unremarkable as it is, has since 1973 been dedicated to trying to be a disciple of Jesus Christ. I believe the gospels are historically accurate as well as revelatory gifts from God. I'm an old-school Jesus Freak -- even live in a "commune" started by Jesus People and called Jesus People USA. We're in many ways vanilla-flavored Evangelical Christians -- looking to the Old and New Testament Scriptures as our primary guide in all matters of faith and practice. (In 1989, we joined an egalitarian, woman-positive denomination, the Evangelical Covenant Church.) We also share the American experience and many American distinctives culturally, and realize how intertwined (for good and for evil) America's history and Evangelical history have become.

I have a novel idea for Evangelicals. Let's look at evil as conceptualized by the Republicans of 2000-2008. Evil is postulated as a "them" problem. Remember George W. Bush's comment that we were going to eradicate Evil in the world? This view puts evil out there, as a "them" problem. But biblically speaking Evil is an "us" problem. WE -- individually and corporately in our various communities of faith, social networking, and national identity -- are the place where Evil exists. Further, more often than not, Scripture specifically speaks to "us" and "I" rather than "them" and "he" or "she." The Bible is a relentlessly personal book addressed to us / me.

Here' s another novel idea, building on the above. Let's look at history as evidence. That is, history will reveal to us our own complicity in the Evil of our world. Consider, for instance, racism. Evangelicals show a remarkable and commendable eagerness to dismantle any remnants of racism. Yet, I gently suggest we often do so while far under-estimating the breadth and depth of racism's legacy in these United States. I am old enough to have personally watched a bigot dancing -- literally -- on his lawn, celebrating one warm April morning the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King. "They shot him -- they shot that commie nigger Martin Luther King!"

And who created the historic context and social rationalization for slavery in the United States? Christians. No, there's no dodging it. Just as South Africa built a sophisticated God-frame around apartheid, their torturous system of color and class, America did so. And Christians rationalized with proof-texted Scripture (as they do now in regards to oppressing women in churches and in marriage). Christians bought slaves, whipped slaves, destroyed black families by selling parents from children and wives/husbands away from one another. Christians raped slaves, using the Old Testament stories in an a-historical manner to justify these "relationships." Our Constitution, for a convoluted set of reasons, defines a black slave as "three-fifths of a person." The largest Evangelical denomination of today, the Southern Baptists, came into existence as the result of a church split with northern Baptists over slavery.

Regarding history and Evil, human beings have a funny way of not seeing its most obvious lessons. For instance, as another Christian leftie co-worked said to me recently, "When we look at Nazis as inhuman monsters instead of human beings inspired by their own sense of right, we are on the verge of becoming Nazis." That is, he continued to explain, when we recognize Evil in others yet fail to understand the commonality of that Evil with all humans throughout history, we risk endlessly repeating history in a demonically naive manner. We "other" the other. This is true of all of us, this writer included. As much as I loathe George W. Bush's thinking, policies, and acts as President, believing he's the worst President this nation has ever suffered, I suspect he's quite a nice guy in person. That is, a lot like me.

That raises the possibility that I could, given the amount of power a President has, create and activate deeds of Evil as a Christian every bit as horrendous as those he's committed in Iraq. And maybe worse... who knows? Fortunately for all of us, I'll never hold such power.

But in light of the above, there's yet another issue we as Evangelicals have to confront. That issue is nationalism. The previously spoken, more often now unspoken, assumption regarding America is that it is God's chosen nation. There is no biblical basis for that idea. Only Israel -- not modern-day, but Old Testament Israel -- is called by Scripture "God's people." And, as any Jewish scholar will tell you, it appears that being God's people usually involves a lot of pain.

We Evangelicals assume a lot of things about our centrality in God's plan, our expectation of material blessings, our belief that militarism is not only a necessity but a positive good. And much more. But beneath all of that runs a river of arrogant pride. We often fall into the root error of believing in our own goodness, our "deserving" blessings both material and relational.

And here is where history and the present collide. The Republicans sell us two things successfully. Fear and Anger. What are we to be fearful of? The Evil in the Other, that evil that our President promised us we would defeat and destroy. What are we to be angry with? The resistance of the Other to our goodness and rightness.

Jesus was murdered by people who thought that way.

People like us.

And Jesus continues to be murdered. "As you have done to the least of one of these, you have done it to me." Those Iraqi mothers and children and fathers and sons who died via American bombs, missiles, and bullets died at the hands of America. And America is us.

Yes, I believe the gospels to be about Jesus in history and (as Kierkegaard warns) even more about the contemporaneity of Christ. Jesus is here now, calling us now, consistently reminding us of our absolute need of Him. He is Love, and His Way does not include pride but rather the crucifixion of pride. We are not a Christian nation and should not expect to be a Christian nation. We as Americans are a nation of individuals and groups of people with thousands of differing beliefs. As Christians we are citizens not primarily of this world but of a coming kingdom.

That kingdom is to be rooted in Jesus' command: "Love one another." This idea is not historical -- that is, it rarely appears as an actuality in history. It is a dark thought with which I end this rambling. But I think that true love can only be actualized by people who see their own Evil, and capacity for Evil, most or all of the time. This is not the way Republicans think these days. Evil is Other, Good is Us.

Fear sells in this setting because we are truly afraid, we have not yet laid our lives down in surrender to Christ the way we think we have. Anger excuses our fear, legitimates it. Anger is the illusion of being righteous, the emotional ace that overrides the suffering heart. To love is to suffer.

History's lesson is that especially in recent years since 9/11, the Republicans have taken this fear/anger paradigm to incredible lengths. Democrats in the past have done the same thing. But Democrats have not tried to sell Evangelicals a bastardized version of the Bible. Obama is a committed, regenerate Christian, yet more importantly than that his attempts to integrate faith and politics are impressive in their cautious humility.

I, as one Evangelical, cannot agree to uphold the Republican Party. The crimes of Iraq -- one million more times worthy of impeachment than a former president having his penis sucked by an intern and lying about it -- will never be punished on this earth. But I am damned if I will support a party, or a candidate, who uses the same language, the same cynical reliance upon god-fearing people, to garner power. Damned because how can I love my neighbor while caving in to the Christless hate and arrogance such language and actions reflect? For the past two elections, we Evangelicals have helped elect an administration rooted in the godless, ultra-elitist ideas of Leo Strauss.

Will we do it again? Will we?

History says we will. The gospels say history is important, but the present potentially even more so.

Barack Obama Again Uses the Internet Wisely, This Time to Expose Smears Against Him

Once again, the Obama campaign proves that it is intelligent and quick on its feet. The new Fight the Smears site launched by them in the past few days ensures that "swift boat" types of smear campaigns against Obama -- whether by web site, mail-outs, Rush Limbaugh types, or emails -- will be responded to within hours, maybe minutes.

An astonishing -- and persistent -- twelve percent of Americans believe Barack Obama was or is a Muslim, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Fight the Smears offers evidence for those willing to overcome bigotry with sense. Oh, and about that rumor that Obama refused to say the Pledge of Allegiance? Another lie. Fight the Smears offers video of Obama in the Senate... pledging allegiance to the flag!

There's plenty more mud to be flung. Doubtless, as McCain's forces continue their attempts to misdirect the American voting public into debating stupid rumors about Obama instead of hard facts about John McCain and his good pal Dick Cheney (whom he at one point talked about as a cabinet member in a McCain presidency, for cryin' out loud!), or about the facts of war in Iraq, or about where the McBush war has put the American economy...

Fight the Smears won't change the Republican Party's love of mud. But it may change the effectiveness of a candidate so targeted's ability to respond. Once again, Barack Obama and his campaign have blazed new trails in powerful campaigning.

So what candidate will the Christian Right back?

Sure, like I care, right?

Well, actually I do a little. I want to see, for one thing, how hypocritical this can get. As a number of people have pointed out re the 2008 presidential hopefuls, for instance, this bit of math seems startling:

Hillary Clinton - married once.
Barach Obama - married once.
John Edwards - married once.
And just for fun...
Al Gore - married once (but not running... so far).

Then we have:
Rudolph Giuliani - married three times.
John McCain - married two times.
Mitt Romney - married once (his Mormonism won't play well with the CR, though).
Newt Gingrich - married three times. (Nonetheless, he's apparently throwing his hat into the presidential ring.)

So... counting Al Gore who probably isn't running (but maybe should?) and Newt who probably is running (but maybe shouldn't?), the totals look like this:

Democrats = 4 candidates = 4 marriages.
Republicans = 4 candidates = 9 marriages (and in Gingrich's confession to evangelical guru James Dobson, he also confessed to an affair during the Bill Clinton scandal!)

A subtext in this is, of course, who is backing who. McCain is disgusted with Dobson, and Dobson has said basically he won't vote for McCain. So one is left wondering if Dobson is attempting to "rehabilitate" Gingrich as his own choice for the Republican nomination. Don't know... but it is nifty to note that though Giuliani (as Land claims) is not only of dubious character and pro-gun control, Gingrich will likely join McCain as pro-NRA. Guns are a Freudian representation of what? Oh... morality! I forgot.

But will other Christian Right spokesmen split their voting block up between Newt Gingrich and, as the Southern Baptists' Richard Land seems to have done, McCain? What would be truly fascinating is if Giuliani holds onto his current lead in early polls, and the Christian Right has to decide between him and whoever the Democrats nominate. Because here's the thing... not to back someone means the Christian Right is no longer a major player in the power wars. And after Dubya's success, largely because of them, I suspect the CR just won't be able to take the road of non-involvement.

This could be a season where all sorts of things, morally and otherwise, become clear.

Richard Land and the Christian Right (Good Luck with that, GOP)

I really do not enjoy seeing (or hearing) the name Richard Land. Nothing against the man himself, mind you. But whenever he opens his mouth, something painful for the rest of us -- Christian or not -- seems to emerge.

This time around, it is his comments on Rudi Giuliani's two divorces that caught my eye.

First, let me say I have no pony in the Republican race. I make this clear to show I don't care who the winner in that race is, as long as they don't end up in the White House.

Second, let me say I suspect Giuliani -- despite his moral shading -- is actually the Republicans' best hope. So I should probably just keep quiet and laugh to myself over the Repubs being saddled with the Christian Right. (Good luck with that in 2008!)

Third, I'm confident that nothing I say will affect any election anywhere. So here we go...

Richard Land dissed Giuliani on "character issues" in an interview with the Associated Press (CNN). His comments addressed Giuliani's messy second divorce in 2000 and resultant familial difficulties, some of which are playing out more publicly as the presidential primary campaign heats up.

"I mean, this is divorce on steroids. To publicly humiliate your wife in that way, and your children. That's rough. I think that's going to be an awfully hard sell, even if he weren't pro-choice and pro-gun control."

I love the last bit, where in what is a non-sequitor, Land switches from divorce to abortion to that most hideous of all moral sins, being pro-gun control! I don't know exactly how Land sorts that out -- I don't recall guns in the Bible but maybe it is in the original Greek or something. What I also thought nice frosting was Land's comments about John McCain, who he apparently is backing. Unfortunately, McCain also has a divorce in his background. But --

"When you're a war hero [like McCain], you have less to prove on the character front."

Does that mean the Christian Right is going to back McCain after all, despite James Dobson (of Focus on the Family) dissing McCain in no uncertain terms? "I would not vote for John McCain under any circumstances," said Dobson in January of this year.

Dang! Someone from the NRA needs to give Jim a call!