Friday, August 19, 2011

Uninformed Incurious Media Clueless About The Religious Right & Rick Perry Vs Michele Bachmann on The Crazy Train To The Presidency

UPDATED: 4:06 PM, August 19, 2011

Proper head ware for "Real Christian Women"

From Christian website which explains what it means for wives to submit to their husbands:

Ephesians 5

22Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

23For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

24Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.


Uninformed Incurious Media Clueless About  The Religious Right  and the Political Right

 Perry has a record of ordering the execution of an obviously innocent man, which goes beyond being tough on crime into the territory of killing as a demonstration of power. Amanda Marcotte at Alternet, August 18, 2011

As a nation, we've been headed down this path for more than 40 years. As the economic fortunes of the U.S. turn downward, we should expect the attraction of right-wing religion, especially its more charismatic and viscerally-felt forms, to expand. Anyone who doesn't just hasn't been paying attention. Adele M. Stan Alternet, August 18, 2011

Why the Mainstream Media Are Clueless About the Religious Right
Thursday 18 August 2011 by: Adele M. Stan, AlterNet

Though it has shaped American politics for the last 40 years, the religious right still baffles reporters

...according to a 2007 survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, and among white self-identified evangelicals, 62 percent told Pew in 2006 that they believe the Bible to be the literal word of God.

These, by and large, are the people who determine the outcome of the Republican presidential primary, thanks to the early stacking of states heavily populated by evangelicals, and the propensity of most evangelicals to align with the Republican Party. And yet, we who cover these races often know very little about the voters whose person-on-the-street interviews they're recording, except to know that these people are very different from us in their view of the world. So as everyday doctrines come to light in one or another campaign incident, the media either find themselves aghast at the implications, or simply choose to ignore them...

...And the notion that regular Americans would buy into an ideology that seeks to implement biblical law as the law of the land really shouldn't come as a surprise to reporters. The Pew 2006 survey found that nearly one-third of Americans said they felt the law of the Bible should outweigh citizen preferences in the formation of civil law.

Differences Blurred

To mainstream reporters, Rick Perry's big prayer rally in Houston earlier this month looked like just another religious-right gathering. To their eyes, what made it unusual was that a sitting governor had used his official gubernatorial letterhead and Web site to promote it.

The greater departure, however, was the way in which the gathering represented a coming together of the New Apostolic Reformation, a far-right charismatic movement that seeks to defeat what its followers believe to be real-life demons located in certain geographical areas with the old-line organizations of the religious right, such as the American Family Association. Even James Dobson, the Focus on the Family founder who rarely makes public appearances anymore, appeared on Perry's stage, lending credence and political power to the demon-chasers. (If mainstream reporters view the doctrine of wifely submission with incredulity and surprise, the NAR doctrine, as described for AlterNet by Rachel Tabachnik, could cause apoplexy.)

In the New York Times' coverage of the rally, the name, New Apostolic Reformation, never appeared, even though one of the movement's more controversial organizations, the International House of Prayer, was among the event's organizers. (Although IHOP was named as an organizer by reporter Manny Fernandez, nothing about its place in the NAR was mentioned in the article. To his credit, though, Fernandez did note that the American Family Association has been named an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.) But this enlargement of the religious-right coalition to include elements once deemed "fringe" even by fellow evangelicals is a major story, especially given the 50-state, cell-based "prayer networks" that are part of the NAR infrastructure.

Meanwhile, at the Washington Post, Jacques Berlinerblau, writing in the paper's "On Faith" section, tsk-tsk'd Perry for talking about Jesus too much, reading too much scripture and generally being unecumenical.

"If he intends on using the religion card effectively beyond the Iowa and South Carolina caucuses and primaries," wrote Berlinerblau, "Governor Perry will have to come up with something more inclusive than this."

Yes, but first he has to win the nomination -- and that will require the votes of millions of Americans who believe that biblical law should supplant the will of the people, and who think the Bible is the literal truth. Right now, they're the ones who matter. And no reporter should be surprised by that.

Michele Bachmann vs. Rick Perry: Who's the Bigger Right-Wing Extremist? Who really deserves a reputation as too much of a right-wing extremist for the Beltway media to take seriously? by Amanda Marcotte at, August 18, 2011

As the battle for the Republican nomination for president heats up, more attention is being paid to Rep. Michele Bachmann from Minnesota, who is cast as the crazy-eyed right-wing nut, and Gov. Rick Perry from Texas, who gets to play the role of the more reasonable Republican who will likely win the nomination

But, as the progressive press has been doggedly trying to expose, Bachmann and Perry are far more alike in the “crazy right-wing nut” department than they might initially seem. After all, Perry has a record of ordering the execution of an obviously innocent man, which goes beyond being tough on crime into the territory of killing as a demonstration of power.

So what’s the real story? In a battle of who’s the biggest right-wing nut, who would win, Michele Bachmann or Rick Perry? I compiled a set of barometers of modern right-wing nuttery and weighed each candidate against them to see who really deserves a reputation in the Beltway media as too much of a right-wing extremist to be taken seriously:

Christian Dominionism. Dominionism used to be a fringe belief, even among fundamentalist Christians in politics, because it’s rooted in Christian Reconstructionism, an ideology that promotes extreme theocracy and includes legalizing slavery and stoning people as criminal punishments for such “crimes” as homosexuality and disobedience to parents. However, in recent years, evangelicals have picked up Dominionism, ignoring its most unsavory aspects in favor of running with the arguments for theocracy. As Michelle Golberg recounted in the Daily Beast, both Bachmann and Perry have taken beliefs from Dominionists, and put into action the idea that the American government should be a Christian theocracy based around a fundamentalist interpretation of Scripture.

Both Perry and Bachmann put a great deal of effort into their theocratic values. Perry not only hosted a prayer event at the governor's mansion, a blatant violation of the separation of church and state, but it was sponsored by a group of Dominionists who believe God wants them to take over all the pillars of government and society so they can run the country as a Pentecostal theocracy.

Evangelical fundamentalists begin with a sincere deeply held belief in the literal and innerrant truth of the Bible as the Word of God.This is not to be taken lightly. It is not merely a matter of the literalist trying to explain Noah and his Ark or Jonah swallowed by a Whale or a giant guppi Their belief in the Bible as the Word of God leads to a worldview which is a direct threat to our way of life if forced upon the rest of society through public policy making decisions and the formulation of laws.

This world view is based upon religious faith and an unqustioning ideology in which everything is seen as black or white there are no grey areas.
Their position is one of an absolutist form of morality based upon the Bible and therefore the word of God.

To commit any action which is unacceptable to the Word of God is to act immorally and to have sinned against man and God.

Abortion for instance is not a choice but is wrong and is always wrong so there can be no exceptions.
If they believe the use of contraceptives are wrong then they too are always wrong there is no exception.
They argue for instance that Gays can choose to be Gay or straight and commit immoral and illegal actions when they choose to be Gay.
Even if science says otherwise these Dominionist refuse to accept this since it goes according to them against the Word of God.

So those who perform abortions and the women who have abortions would be incarcerated or executed for taking the life of a child . For them from the time of fertilization to birth the fetus is to have the same rights as all other citizens.
For them Fetuses or even Zygotes and Corporations have the same rights as other people-that is in their twisted view of the world.

These Dominionists Evangelicals are anti-pluralism, anti-diversity, anti-multiculturalism and in the final analysis are anti-democracy .

  Though they often complain that the Media does not treat them with respect and tolerance at the same time their agenda basically argues against tolerance of other religions or even of those who claim to be Christians but who have become far too liberal and who preach "social Justice" and tolerance for Homosexuals and so forth.

They believe in exclusivism in which those who are true believers have certain rights and privileges which non-believers are to be denied.
They believe only "Real Christians" and in their view "Real Americans" should be permitted to hold positions of authority.

and here's another example of the Religious Right pushing for legilation to undermine Pro-Choice laws.

" Michigan Bill Reveals Anti-Choicers Hate Coercion, Unless They Are The Coercers "' By Angi Becker Stevens via| Sourced from RH Reality Check August 16, 2011

The latest in a long line of recently proposed anti-choice legislation in Michigan, HB 4799 takes yet another new approach in attacking abortion: the bill, if passed, would specifically prohibit coercing a woman into an abortion. In addition to prohibiting any threats of violence, HB 4799 would impose fines on husbands who threaten their wives with divorce unless they abort a pregnancy, or on parents who similarly threaten the withdrawal of financial support. Fines for attempting to coerce a woman into having an abortion would be up to $5000, or up to $10,000 if the woman is a minor or if the perpetrator of the coercion is the father of the fetus in question.

At first glance, it’s easy to read this as reasonable. No one, obviously, ever wants to see a woman pressured and coerced into an abortion she does not want. The catch, of course, is that anyone truly concerned with protecting women--not fetuses--from coercive forces would be equally interested in preventing women from being coerced into any reproductive choice, including the choice to continue a pregnancy against one’s will. As far as HB 4799 is concerned, threatening to divorce your wife unless she gets an abortion has a $10,000 price tag. Threatening to divorce her if she gets an abortion, however, is perfectly acceptable. In fact, the state itself is perfectly willing to participate in coercion against abortion; the same lawmakers behind this bill are ironically also the lawmakers trying to force Michigan women to view the most clear and accurate ultrasound images possible before obtaining an abortion.

And to take the hypocrisy even further, Michigan happens to be a state with strict parental notification laws for minors seeking abortion. So while it could soon become illegal for parents to attempt to pressure their daughters into having abortions, it is well within parents’ legal rights to force their daughters to continue an unwanted pregnancy. This type of tactic seems to be a hot trend right now in anti-choice legislation: nationwide, we’ve seen proposed laws claiming to provide women with greater ability to make informed decisions, to ensure increased safety of clinics, to prevent abortions due to the race or gender of the fetus. They are the kind of laws that sound almost inarguable, unless we look at them in a larger context. When one specific action or procedure is the subject of intense legal scrutiny, that scrutiny reflects a bias.

Where are the laws precisely dictating the kind of information a patient must be given before undergoing less-controversial medical procedures? Where are the fines for husbands who would threaten divorce in order to coerce their wives into specific sexual acts, or for the parents who would cut off all support for kids who come out of the closet? Coercion is bad, we can all agree. But we can’t allow this “we’re trying to protect women!” rhetoric to cloud our judgment. HB 4799 is not about protecting women from coercion, it’s about finding one more new path by which to vilify abortion. And no legislators who attempt to block our access to safe and legal abortion can ever claim to be acting in defense of women.

and here's an example of those who adhere to a literalist inerrancy of the Bible explaining why women are inferior to men and as wives must submit to their husbands.
(of course since Bible based law has not yet become dominant in America these members of the Religious Right will in the mean time accept a woman who is one of them to hold positions of authority until they finally take Dominion over all aspects of American society that is governance, business, education, media and so forth.) which explains what it means for wives to submit to their husbands:

Ephesians 5

22Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

23For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

24Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.


33Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

Submission to Your Husband?!

Sisters, it is often asked, should a wife submit to her husband? If she wishes to follow scripture the answer is a resounding yes. The scripture is EXTREMELY clear on this point. You can follow it or not. If you are a new Christian and were unaware of the verses regarding submission, I can imagine they might be a shock to you. However, I think even some of us who have been Christian a long time still are in shock. Many Christian ladies hate or are embarrassed by these scriptures. They are proud of their faith, but don’t want others to think they are “mindless”. They will find any excuse to not obey. If you are trying to pass it off as a “cultural” requirement, do you realize you are ignoring a command of God? Either you believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God or you don’t. If you do, shouldn’t you obey it?!

Yes, I admit I sound harsh here. Sisters, so many of us struggle with this issue.

...Here is a scriptural fact though. The world will not love you, understand you, nor respect you. Why do you spin your wheels trying to get that accomplished? It isn’t going to happen unless you compromise the very word of God?! Stop trying to make the command to submission look “soft”. It is what it is. Yes it is patriarchal! Yes it is male dominant! So what?!

If that is the way God wants it I am okay with that. I love God and I trust that He knows best. If the world calls me a doormat for that, so be it.

The comment that it “takes a strong woman to submit”. Again, this is catering to the world. The Bible directly says that the woman is the WEAKER vessel. We have to accept that for what it is. We are who God made us to be, accept it with grace. Do not let your pride be your downfall.

and so it goes ,

No comments: