Thursday, May 07, 2009

Racism Religious Fanaticism Still Alive and doing well in America

UPDATE: 12:49 AM & 1:05 AM & 11:47AM May 7, 2009

In case you missed it :

Francis Schaeffer: The Republicans are like the loud obnoxious drunk on the Subway who is harassing everybody and molesting the women on the train.

Frank Schaeffer speaks about the Republican Party , The Religious Right and Neoconservatives. His father Francis Schaeffer was one of the founders of the Religious Right in the 1970s to 1980s.

Francis Schaeffer gives some apt descriptions of the Religious Right & Neocons which resulted in a sort of Fascistic mentality who want to create a mean-spirited Theocracy in which there are the True Believers and " the Other " who are to be hated .
Rush Limbaugh he says is really representative of what's left of the Conservative movement in America March 07, 2009 CNN

"...The Republican Party says it stands for individual rights, limited government, free enterprise, fiscal restraint, a strong defense—and it’s hard to argue with any of those broad principles. But they have to be interpreted in the context of today’s America, which is different from the America of 1989, or the America of 1889.

A modern Republican Party would have argued for a modified stimulus package, not a bunch of tax cuts that most economists agree couldn’t possibly do what a stimulus is supposed to do. A modern Republican Party would share in the Democrats’ outrage at the inefficiency and unfairness of our health insurance system, and would work to shape true reform rather than prevent it. A modern Republican Party would recognize that “no” is not the answer that Americans want to hear."

Eugene Robinson at May 1, 2009

" The quandary in which the Republican Party now finds itself is not due to a public relations problem, but stems from being strongly identified, and not without good reason, with the Bush administration. The Bush administration is broadly viewed as a failure, not because it didn't present itself well, but because it mishandled both the economy and foreign policy to disastrous effect. Additionally, some of the ideas which have been foundation of the Republican Party have, in the cases of radical social conservatism and unregulated financial sectors, become the views of an increasingly small minority of Americans. Other bedrock Republican views, such as fiscal conservatism and a realist based foreign policy, were abandoned altogether by the Bush administration and the Republican Party in the last decade. These are problems are profound and go to the core not just of the party's image, but to its vision, message and raison d'etre.

The post-Bush Republican Party is not unpopular simply because they are viewed by many as too old, too white, too male or too out of touch with 21st century America, although all those perceptions do not exactly help the party. They are unpopular because they are associated with a failed administration and, due to having become captured by the right wing fringe, are unable to contribute serious, remotely popular ideas to the debate. Rebranding may help a little, but it will not resolve these fundamental problems."

Quote from:Rebranding Will Not Be Enough For These Republicans by Lincoln Mitchell at Huffington Post, May 4, 2009

-Alleged hate crime in which a Mexican Immigrants was brutally beaten to death ends with an all white jury's verdict in a lesser sentence of common assault and not second degree murder . Is this another case of American Justice still reflecting racist attitudes of many Americans.

" Some Satisfied, Others Outraged With Verdict for Immigrant's Death " by Emanuella Grinberg at CNN, May 3, 2009

- Republicans re-branding but their troubles go a lot deeper than mere re-branding
ie they have become captives of the Far Right & the Neocons and are unable to change enough to be appealing to a larger number of Americans- they represent somewhere around 20 % of Americans.

-Michelle Bachman and other conservatives blame illegal immigrants especially Mexicans for Swine Flu

- Michael Savage racist Radio Shock Jock banned from the UK for Hate Speech

- Jay Severin another radio shock jock also blames Mexican Illegal immigrants for swine flu - refers to Mexicans as unhygenic, dirty, leeches who will eventually destroy America

and now a funny bit about Michelle Bachman - though her ideas & beliefs are not so funny and are fueling the extreme right in America emboldening them to what to be ready to take up arms against the Obama administration.

Michelle Bachmann - takes on Swine Flu - Parody

Now to the more serious news:

also see :
Michael Savage Banned From Entering UK: Country Publishes List Of People Not Allowed by nancy Zuckerbrod, At Huffington Post,May 5, 2009

LONDON — Britain for the first time has published a list of people barred from entering the country for what the government says is fostering extremism or hatred.

The list includes popular American talk-radio host Michael Savage, who has called the Muslim holy book, the Quran, a "book of hate." Savage also has enraged parents of children with autism by saying in most cases it's "a brat who hasn't been told to cut the act out."

The list Tuesday also includes Americans Stephen Donald Black, a white supremacist, and anti-gay preacher Fred Phelps.

Hamas parliament member Yunis Al-Astal and Egyptian cleric Safwat el-Higazi also are on the banned list.

Anyway Michael Savage is upset that the Brits would dare call his speech Hateful or incendiary so here is an example of what Savage calls his well reasoned and reasonable discourse which he believes represents the feelings and attitudes of most Americans. Hopefully he is wrong about this and that his racist ideas only represent a fairly loud minority in America.

Michael Savage hates Muslims
from: bravenewfilms January 17, 2008

and now some commentary by Cenk Uygur at The Young Turks about Michael Savage being banned fro the UK.
Michael Savage Banned From The U.K!!!-May 5
The Young Turks-Watch more at

and one more funny but sad bit which shows that the US education system has failed them so that they can not distinguish between scientific facts and their religious beliefs- How are these pro-Creationists & anti-Evolutionist all that different from Islamic Fundamentalists who also reject Darwinism . The two views as such can not be given equal time in the schools - if they insist there could be a couple of hours used to discuss Creationism but not as science but as a religious belief based upon a literal inerrant view of the Bible. Unless to be fair one were to say that science in the end cannot explain the origins of the Universe or why it exists then one is getting into philosophy and religion.

It may not be child abuse but it surely does a disservice to the child's education not to teach Evolution and Darwinism as such as scientific fact and to differentiate it from "Religious Beliefs" The fundamentalist Muslims like the Taliban would also refuse to allow the teaching of evolution as opposed to their religious beliefs in the same way as they would reject the idea that men and women are equal rather than in their view that women are to be subservient to men which is also what most Evangelical Fundamentalists also believe if they hold to an Inerrant view of the Bible that is that each and every word of the Bible as Michael Medved as we see below believes that it is the Word of God and therefore literally true.

'The View' In Heated Debate Over Teaching Creationism-May 5, 2009

see:"The View" Argues About "Darwinism" And Creationism (VIDEO) May 5,2009, Huffington Post

The Most Racist Comments About Mexicans Ever Allowed On-Air Posted by Cenk Uygur, The Young Turks at 9:00 AM at AlterNet.oron May 4, 2009.

...conservative talk show host Jay Severin should absolutely be fired for his racist comments against Mexicans on the radio. I hesitate in writing about this because Severin is a pathetic nobody who might be looking for national attention by making these kinds of incredibly ignorant comments. But, on the other hand, there have to be consequences for this kind of deeply hateful speech. And if people don’t argue forcefully enough against it, there won’t be enough pressure on the station to get rid of this hateful racist.

So, what did he say that’s got me so worked up?

Racist Radio Shock Jock refers to Mexicans as "Primitives" & "leeches" - sound a lot like the propaganda by Anti-Semitics about Jewish peopel as vermin or rats etc.

The Most Racist Comments About Mexicans Ever Allowed On-Air- May 1, 2009
Cenk Uygur commenting on Jay Severin 's racist rant on Mexicans
Watch more at

(Note: changed video now working)
Sean Hannity on Rebranding Republican Party
May 5, 2009
Hannity on future of Republican Party

Fox News "Hannity's America" discusses the future of the Republican Party

Hannity & Bernie Goldberg Bursts "The GOP Is Too Liberal" Meme On Fox

Republicans on a Bridge to Nowhere by Eugene Robinson at May 1, 2009

At this point, I’m almost ready to start rooting for the Republicans.

No, not really. There’s no “mercy rule” in politics. And anyway, the increasingly bitter ideologues who control what’s left of the Grand Old Party are so bereft of new ideas—and so determined to obstruct rather than collaborate—that I could never wish them well.

The thing is, though, that input from an effective, constructive opposition party would be good at this pivotal moment in the nation’s history. If only such a party could be found.

President Obama described this vacuum well at his “100 Days” news conference Wednesday evening. Republicans, he said, “can’t ... define bipartisanship as simply being willing to accept certain theories of theirs that we tried for eight years and didn’t work, and that the American people voted to change.”

Obama was responding to a question about Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter’s defection to the Democrats and the prospect of “one-party rule” in Washington. If Al Franken is eventually declared the winner of the Senate race in Minnesota—and he’s ahead of incumbent Norm Coleman by a few hundred votes, pending further court challenges—the Democrats will have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate to go along with firm control of the House of Representatives

...The Republican Party says it stands for individual rights, limited government, free enterprise, fiscal restraint, a strong defense—and it’s hard to argue with any of those broad principles. But they have to be interpreted in the context of today’s America, which is different from the America of 1989, or the America of 1889.

A modern Republican Party would have argued for a modified stimulus package, not a bunch of tax cuts that most economists agree couldn’t possibly do what a stimulus is supposed to do. A modern Republican Party would share in the Democrats’ outrage at the inefficiency and unfairness of our health insurance system, and would work to shape true reform rather than prevent it. A modern Republican Party would recognize that “no” is not the answer that Americans want to hear.

Chris Kelly in a scathing tongue in cheek article questions why the conservatives & Republicans are so miffed at Obama for saying that one of the qualities he would look for in the next appointee to the Supreme Court would be empathy . He uses his article in particular to attack Michael Medved's argument that Obama should consider a nominee based upon the Bible ie the Book of Leviticus which Medved then cherry picks from to support his argument. So if Medved is sincere in his appeal to the Old Testament then shouldn't he like any faithful Reconstructionists or Dominionists also believe in the practices of "Stoning" or of "Slavery " of killing homosexuals, adulterers & witches- "Suffer not a witch to live" ie Harry Potter and the gang etc. Reminds one of the notorious video of Jesus Camp in which we see all these horrors being used to indoctrinate & propagandize young children to prepare them for the creation of a true Theocracy in America.

" Empathy for the Devil " by Chris Kelly at Huffington Post May 6, 2009

Last week, President Obama said he wanted to replace Justice Souter with another judge who feels empathy, and since then our friends in the crankosphere have been arguing that empathy is bad.

This is justice we're talking about. And it's a slippery slope from empathy to mercy.

...Here's their point, though: The Constitution must be interpreted impartially and without emotion, and Laura Ingraham is so purple with rage that you can't get that through your thick skull.

Of course, there are all sorts of good reasons why law is best administered by sociopaths, but my favorite came out today, from talk radio's Michael Medved:

Because the Bible Says So.

Or, as Medved entitles his exegesis:

Obama Should Listen to Leviticus: Don't Confuse Justice and Charity

Now, Michael Medved interprets the Pentateuch like dogs sew. He's, well, he's an idiot. But here's the gist of it:

The core mistake of liberalism involves the confusion of charity and justice ... Leviticus 19:15 declares: "You shall not commit a perversion of justice; you shall not favor the poor and you shall not honor the great; with righteousness shall you judge your fellow." ... The truth is that the Bible - both Old and New Testament--views compassion as a personal obligation rather than a public priority for governmental or judicial policy ... [Obama] specifically indicated he wanted a judge with a "heart" for the poor and downtrodden, and who would concentrate on their specific interests and needs--in other words, precisely the sort of jurist prohibited by Leviticus.

Medved goes on to cite some definitions of Hebrew words he agrees with and dismiss some definitions he doesn't. A few he just makes up himself. Then he randomly elides between what Yahweh wants from a person and what he expects from a state, and pretty soon you're off the deep end, where what really made Moses mad was quotas and the abomination of desolation is the inheritance tax.

It's Our Duty To Investigate Torture! Congressman Nadler- May 4, 2009

Medved argues that going after Bush personnel for the crimes they committed is just a matter of Democrats going after Republicans. He argues that these people acted in good Faith and with sincerity after the 9/11 attacks and because the U.S. is still involved with the War on Terror. These people he claims helped to keep America safe. He also argues that this is just a matter of " policy differences " and what they did was not criminal in his view. Enhanced Interrogations he believes were in fact not torture or abuse. Besides he claims that Gonzales and Rice and others were acting impartially as lawyers and not as partisan players in the Bush /Cheney Regime which is just blatant nonsense if one has read the Torture Memos and the Armed Services Committee Report . Medved actually calls the Bush legal henchmen the "finest Legal Minds in our ( US) country " what the ...?

and a recent study showed that those Americans who were most in favor of the use of torture were Christians who attended services on a regular basis. To many this seems odd given Jesus of Nazareth's Sermon on the Mound and other quotable qoutes of Jesus. But of course many of these Christians are more interested in finding proof for their belief in torture and such in the sufferings of Jesus which became a major focus of the Church in later centuries as it moved from being spiritual to being a Church with power in the real world and became just another humanly flawed institution.

" Why the Faithful Approve of Torture " by Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, at The Washington Post , May 1, 2009

...But I think it is possible, even likely, that this finding has a theological root. The UN Convention Against Torture defines torture as "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person..." White Evangelical theology bases its view of Christian salvation on the severe pain and suffering undergone by Jesus in his flogging and crucifixion by the Romans. This is called the "penal theory of the atonement" - that is, the way Jesus paid for our sins is by this extreme torture inflicted on him.

For Christian conservatives, severe pain and suffering are central to their theology. This is very clear in the 2002 Mel Gibson movie, The Passion of the Christ. Evangelical Christians flocked to this movie, promoted it and still show it in their churches, despite the fact that it is R-rated for the extraordinary amount of violence in the film. It is, in fact, the highest grossing R-rated movie in the history of film. The flogging of Jesus by the Romans goes on for fully 40 minutes. It is truly the most violent film I have ever seen.

The message of the movie, and a message of a lot of conservative Christian theology, is that severe pain and suffering are not foreign to Christian faith, but central.

Of course, this is an interpretation of Jesus life, death and resurrection that I reject. It is also an interpretation that I believe has done a lot of harm through the centuries. I think it is impossible, yes, impossible, if you read the Gospels, to make the case that God wanted Jesus tortured for the sins of humanity. But that is an interpretation that has sometimes been made in the history of Christianity and the social and political fallout has been, and is today, that torture is OK, maybe even more than OK. This Pew finding may just be another in a long line of horrible historical examples of that.

and so it goes,

No comments: