The Church of St. Beck: Can "Divine Destiny" Help Restore Honor To The Christian Right?

 

Will 

Gay Marriage 

And 

Mormonism 

Sever Ties?

August 28th, the day Glenn Beck's Restoring Honor rally hits the nation's capitol, may become a notable date in history: it will be the first time that Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin will meet to extol the glory that was our country and what we should do to regain its former stature among nations and among ourselves. It will be notable because it surely will not be the only time these two world-renowned people will be together under the shadow of Abraham Lincoln to put forth their philosophies and theologies. History is ready to enshrine their wisdom.

Then again...

Ben Dimiero, Media Matters:

Beck's messianic religiosity took the next logical step this week, when he announced a new event scheduled on the eve of the 8-28 rally. Employing his characteristic humility, the event will be titled "Glenn Beck's Divine Destiny" and will feature "nationally-known figures from all faiths." Beck describes the evening as an "eye-opening" event "that will help heal your soul."

"... from all faiths." Will that panoply of religion include Islam? For Beck's sake, it had better not. It shouldn't include Hinduism. Or Buddhism. Or Mormonism. Or even Judaism (to any extent - tokens may be accepted since he's actually had several rabbis on his radio show). The guest list MUST be packed with such notables as Tony Perkins (FRC), Bryan Fischer (AFA), Lou Engle, Rick Warren, Richard Land (SBC), Franklin Graham, Jerry Falwell, Jr. and (if he's feted enough), Pat Robertson. If Glenn Beck wants to solidify his power-base, he needs these men and needs to keep within their boundaries. Through his historian-guru, David Barton, Beck has firmly placed the Christian Nation ideology on the political map. With rallies like this one, however, he must make certain that the meme is stretched to mean "Christian-Only Nation."

There will be points that Beck will need to punctuate or else the Tony Perkinses and Franklin Grahams will walk away and leave a very unpleasant tension in the air:

• First: America is a Christian Nation. Beck's "historian" David Barton must be able to point to every founding father and declare that without a doubt he was a Christian and that this country was founded solely on Christian principles.
• Gay rights are not Civil Rights. The fact that August 28th is the 47th anniversary of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s I Have A Dream speech will not be lost on the multitude, hopefully sprinkled with African American pastors.
• America must repent. It must feel utter remorse in the fact that it let hedonistic and immoral forces take over the country.
• If America does not stop the machinations of the Obama administration, it will be doomed to become a totalitarian, Socialist - and Godless - state.
• The Freedoms of Religion and Speech are being strongly curtailed and, if we do not act now, Christian churches and congregations will be persecuted.
• Traditional marriage is under attack by a small but powerful minority of homosexual, Socialist activists.
• The current administration seeks to uphold immoral laws allowing abortion.
• Our justice system has been corrupted by the ideologies of lawless Socialists.
• If our country does not turn away from Socialist ideas, Socialist science, and Socialist education, then it is doomed both spiritually and physically.
• Muslims - especially the ones who practice Islam - should be looked upon as potential terrorists.

I don't think the Beckian concept of "social justice" will be featured, since all of Beck's apostles know it by heart.

I beg you, look for the words 'social justice' or 'economic justice' on your church Web site. If you find it, run as fast as you can. Social justice and economic justice, they are code words. Now, the idea - hang on, am I advising people to leave their church? Yes!

That now-famous statement has been enshrined in the halls of the Christian Right while being scorned from the pulpits of the progressives. With that one statement, Beck defined both sides: Progressive=evil, Conservative = good. 

Beck's definitions are not, however, quite balanced: "conservative" should be replaced by "regressive." And then "Restoring" would make more sense, for according to the Right's philosophy, we must reach back in time to retrieve the principles, to take back the Christian morals that we don't have today. And Beck's definition of "honor" is also amiss: isn't hypocrisy one of the opposites of honor? Isn't hiding behind the Bible, cowering behind the pulpit and evoking the First Amendment to justify hate speech dishonorable? Isn't bloviating about religious freedom while (literally) demonizing other religions dishonorable? What is so honorable about turning one's rights into something to be feared? And what is so unifying about "us" versus "them"? Restore Honor, by its very name says that "we" are better than "them."  

That begs the question: who's honor needs to be restored? 

Cracks In Divine Destiny

Unfortunately for Glenn Beck, his ship of Divine Destiny this Friday has already had some serious bailouts:


Brannon Howse, of World View Matters:

He has swerved into theological and doctrinal realm in the last few weeks. He’s said things on the air that makes my skin crawl. . . a ‘works based’ theology that is based in Mormonism. . . . We are not serving the god of Mormonism that says you can be like God… a religion that said Jesus and Satan were brothers. . . . Leave your pagan—your cult—religion. . . .

It's important to know that Howse was a big supporter of Beck and David Barton's "Christian Nation" meme, but the prospect of Mormonism creeping into Beck's "Daily Prayer" (on radio) and into his new found religionist theories makes many Christians' "skin crawl".

Coupled with Beck's promoting Mormonism is the even worse possibility that he might also promote the tolerance he showed for same-sex marriage on Bill O'Reilly's program:

O'Reilly: ... Is it going to harm the country?

Beck: I believe that Thomas Jefferson said: "If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket what difference is it to me?

Alan Keyes on Restoring Honor:

The MSM will undoubtedly tout attendance at the event as evidence of support for his patently false view that promotion of "gay marriage" poses no threat to our Constitution, sovereignty and liberty; that the majority of Americans are willing to allow the legal abandonment of the natural family and a redefinition of rights that makes them figments of government power rather than authoritative assertions of God's will for justice.

Famous CR homo-Islamo-everyone-who's-not-CR-phobe Bryan Fischer:

Count Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck as the latest deserters in the culture war and in the battle for sexual normalcy. They have flinched at "precisely that little point which the world and the devil are ... attacking," and so have forfeited the right to consider themselves any longer culture warriors.

Glenn Beck's Minister Of Chauvenism

Of course, a laissez-faire attitude towards gay marriage will oppose Beck's most ardent promoter, Jim Garlow, pastor of Skyline Church in San Diego and one of the men who spearheaded Proposition 8. 

Below is an audio clip from one of Beck's most recent radio shows which can serve as a guide to what thought processes will be used during the two-day fete. It really bears listening to, because Garlow regurgitates all the points above with (unfortunate) sincerity and piety. His sermon is  supposedly based on the book of Hosea (on which he so proudly says that he based his master's thesis).  Garlow then uses the usual supposition that no one actually reads the Bible (let alone an obscure  book like Hosea) and procedes to carve out his own fictitious story that Hosea forgave this wanton wife and she obediently followed him home.  Look it up in the KJV (Hosea), and see if there's any way you can conceivably make out his story from what is written.

The above anecdote serves to tell us the kind of "honorable" men Beck has been surrounding himself with.

Beck's homespun demagoguery is at times reminiscent of Andy Griffith's character in A Face In The Crowd. In the clip below, Griffith gloats to the late Patricia Neal about his political power. The horror on her face looks familiar, because you can see the same horror in the faces of Beck's critics: here is a man who has is enraptured by his own effect on people. With Beck, the medium has become the message.

I ask that you would come and bring your family, bring your children, this is going to be a historic day, it is going to be a day that I think will shock those naysayers, those people on the far left, those people who think we are going to dishonor...it is about Restoring Honor.

So whose honor will Divine Destiny Beck restore? The country's? The Christian Right's? His own?

When musing on Glenn Beck's many scattered (and even contradictory) philosophies, someone used the old saw "a broken clock is right twice a day." That may be true. However, a brocken clock is also wrong 1438 times a day. Whatever happens on Satruday, let's not give Beck too much credit.*

Listen to internet radio with glennbeckprayer on Blog Talk Radio

Here’s the clip, via Media Matters:

*After all, he'll have Palin with him, too.

We Don't Have To Be Nice, Ctd: Goodness Is Our Sole Propriety

 

I've always had a problem with the phrase, "It's the Christian thing to do." Somehow I always imagine it being said with a slight air of contempt. It's always said by self-righteous old ladies (English ladies, to be sure) with their noses firmly pointed towards the sky and their eyes looking down at their underlings. To me, it is the most insufferably arrogant phrase in our very difficult, but very precise language and it conveys to the listener that the person saying it, like others of his or her ilk, have a corner on goodness. 

So in the midst of the furor brought about by the Cordoba Center ("Ground Zero Mosque"), I'm wondering when the phrase will be uttered. Oh, it's been bandied about in several ways by that paragon of Christofascism, Bryan Fischer (he of the SPLC-listed hate group, American Family Association), but not with anything even resembling compassion, even condescending compassion. (He said that deporting all Muslims would be "compassionate" but he couldn't be heard thereafter above the laughter).

The Christofascists will certainly have a difficult go of it: the closest they can come to "the Christian thing to do" is to tolerate the building of the Center, but they won't do that since they've been demonizing Muslims so long it would be totally out of character. So here is an instance where "the Christian thing to do," becomes different than "the American thing to do." Again, a stumbling block, but one which Christofascists are certainly more experienced in handling. For years, Christofascists have made equal rights for gays "unAmerican" in their circuitous reasoning, so they will somehow turn the freedom of religion for Muslims into an attack on America's principles. Don't ask me how they will do it, but there will be ads/billboards demonizing Islam and Muslims. Maybe they'll cling to that imaginary string (a leftover from some Southern Baptist minister's sermon) that Islam is not really a religion, but a cult of bloodthirsty thugs. And when they get through demonizing, we'll be glad if the KKK moves in on the spot.

Forget the "insensitivity" issue. It's dead. In it's place will come "evil." Christofascists will talk of evil more than any thing else from now on. They have to use force. Maybe force will be "the Christian thing to do."

Now the GOP has chimed in and said it will definitely make the GZM a talking point in midterm elections. Why? Is it necessary for politicians to take a stance at all? To Christofascists across the country it definitely is, because involving politicians only lends credibility to their stance: more politicians on their side is the "American" bridge they need. It will be "the American thing to do."

Rob Kall of OpEdNews had an interesting take on the situation:

The world we live is no longer so simple, so small that we can speak to one group and assume another group will now know what we've said. It hasn't been for a long time. Yet this is how the opponents of the Cordoba building, which is not being built on Ground Zero, are acting. They need to come out of their caves and wake up to the reality that their small, bigoted response does not stand the smell test, when they claim failed Muslim "sensitivity." On the contrary, their own sensitivity to the threat to America is the problem.

I will agree that Christofascists are zenophobic because they realize the wisdom of taking on one country at a time, but Kall is wrong when he thinks that they will ever "come out of their caves." Many of those "caves" are Fundamentalist congregations owned by the new "Christian" leaders like Tony Perkins, Rick Warren, Rod Parsley and Lou Engle.  And if they come out at all, it will be too late.

America's pop religious icons are coming very close to expelling Muslims altogether, from jobs, from homes, from America. And they will somehow manage to take Bryan Fischer's  "compassion" and fashion it into one big, righteous package: "It's the Christian AND American thing to do." I don't know exactly how or when (or who), but someone like Tony Perkins will re-enact Queen Isabella's expulsion of Muslims and Jews from Spain which, being the "Christian thing to do" allowed people to keep their lives in some warped worldview of compassion and humanity. And of course, it won't be "nice" just "Christian." 

And "good."

We Don't Have To Be Nice Anymore: Is Christofascist Tough Love Gaining Ground?

overt

                    

This is how evil advances in America - 

one weak-kneed group of kind-hearted, wimpish people at a time. God has not called us to be nice, he has called us to be good, and being good will occasionally call us to stand firm in the face of evil and stare it down.

 - Brian Fischer, Focal Point, 7/21/10 

When Barack Obama dove into the Ground Zero Mosque Debate, he expressed a fundamental  American tenet: to be kind and tolerant of everyone. Of course, he qualified his statement by implying that he didn't necessarily agree with the wisdom of building an Islamic cultural center just blocks away from New York's infamous site, but the sentiment threw the Christian Right into a near-violent tantrum of Islamophobia. Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association pre-empted Obama's statement by saying that absolutely no mosques should be built at all:

Bryan Fischer:

"Permits should not be granted to build even one more mosque in the United States of America, let alone the monstrosity planned for Ground Zero," Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association wrote this week on the AFA website. "This is for one simple reason: each Islamic mosque is dedicated to the overthrow of the American government."

From Renew America:

That's what you get when you elect a man named Barack Hussein Obama about whom you know nothing other than the fawning, worshipful puke served up by the liberal media all through the campaign and for most of his first year and a half in office.

The rhetoric of the Christian Right is getting dangerously vitriolic. Forget the calls for the death of Obama: these were considered to be the squeakings of church mice like James Manning and Wiley Drake (and Pat Robertson's edicts have been on the wane for the last decade). No,  the Lou Engles and covert Reconstructionists of today's Christofascism*  don't put their faith in imprecatory prayers, but instead focus their prayers (sung by rock bands) on a Christian-only nation ridding its country of perceived enemies whether they be Muslims, gays, atheists, feminists ... o.k., it's a rather long list. 

Bryan Fischer's pronouncements - that we should deport all Muslims, that gays are a threat to the entire country, that Christians are commanded by God to be "good" but not necessarily "nice" - are  foolhardy statements that nonetheless reflect the inner core of Christofascism. If people distance themselves from Fischer, it's only because they don't want their true agenda to be known just yet. Sound like a conspiracy theory? Maybe, but even the most far-out theories can have a grain of truth in them.

Today, more and more people are taking on the titles of "theocrat" or "Reconstructionist" with only a slight brush to the side: i.e., they don't take as much offense at those labels as they used to. Yes, I've read The American Spectator article on the misuse of the term "Reconstructionist," but I still think that Sharron Angle is a Reconstructionist ....disguised as a complete ditz.

Love The Sinner

Most Christofascists believe that if you repeat the "Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin" slogan a certain number of times, anyone will believe your intentions are good. The LSHS ideology has been around a long time: it's good PR. But they also know that only a miniscule portion of their adherents believe it, much less practice it. LSHS grates against human nature: which one of us loves the person who stole our food? our shelter? our clothing? 

Pat Robertson, The 700 Club television program, January 14, 1991:

You say you're supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense. I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist. I can love the people who hold false opinions but I don't have to be nice to them.

Maybe it comes down to this: the Christofascists of today simply tout their stance as one of "tough love." E.G.: Bryan Fischer said that deporting all Muslims may actually be compassionate, since they would get to be with "their own kind." A monstrous statement, to be sure, but one that had conviction.

The Lies

Another reason I think that Christofascist Tough Love might be gaining ground is that old lies are brought out and brandished with impunity:

Boots on the Ground piece:

The Gay subculture is one of the most violent subcultures out there.  Government studies show gays are 20 times more likely to be abusive or abused in their personal relationships.  This reflects an inherent emotional instability that is not conducive to good order or discipline. 

The author of the piece above was referencing a thoroughly debunked 40-year-old statistic. Whether or not he knows it's a lie is, of course, another story: it's the same old lie repeated in every one of the Family Research Council's donation pleas. Along with it are the "facts": gays have a shorter life-span by 20 years, gays are unstable because their suicide rate is 6 times greater than "normal" people, and gays always have HIV-tainted blood. 

But lies are gaining ground in the fact that, given support (like a moronic congressman), they reach the ears of the general populace:  The Rachel Maddow show (rightly) poked fun at Rep. Louie Gohmert (R., Texas) and his assertion about supposed "terror babies." (See below). We all laughed, but think of this: how many people had to believe in "terror babies" before it came to Gohmert's attention? Where did the story originate? And despite the ludicrous presentation Gohmert made, how many believed him because he was made to look like a fool on Anderson Cooper 360? Sometimes more support is gained when an adherent to the cause is ridiculed by the "liberal" media.  America loves an underdog. 

It may seem contradictory for a religious group based on the teachings of Christ to espouse such potentially violent ideologies: wasn't Christ "good-hearted" and "nice" to people? Aren't we "good" because we are "nice" to people? Doesn't our own Statue of Liberty declare how "nice" and compassionate a country we are? Unfortunately,  "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free" is, day-by-day, becoming an anachronism when compared to a Christofascist's  "tough love" stance on immigration and Muslims. And even occassional shots of "Love the sinner" - given to anaesthetise people from the pain of Christofascist's demonization of gays - are giving way to overt lies and distortions.

Periodically, the cry will go out that the Christian Right is dead or that Christofascists are losing the culture war because their numbers are shrinking. This assertion, however, does not consider the fact that no matter what their number, their hate has become louder, yet more insidious, if that's possible. They have concentrated their strength, condensed it, and  even localized it. Their national screeds and bloviators, like Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council and Lou Engle of The Call, are spearheads they hope will inflict serious wounds into a diverse democracy. The Values Voter summit, unfortunately, grows every year. Their screams concerning freedom of speech and freedom of religion grow louder with each of their setbacks or obstacles; e.g. October will be a tipping point in the Fred Phelps saga - in as much as they've distanced themselves from Phelps,  they will most certainly support a Supreme Court decision for Phelps. Their kind of freedom  must trump the kind of emotional vandalism Phelps heaped upon the families of war casualties. 


And they will continue to trumpet lies and distortions through people like Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh. They will continue to support creationism, homophobia, Islamophobia. They will continue to foster the image of a militaristic Jesus and eschew the "kind-hearted", "bleeding hearts" and "nice" people in favor of the  aggressive, political religious. 

I realize that these last points make me sound polemic, but how can I sound balanced when faced with the biased, the unbalanced? 


How can any of us be patient for human rights and equality when faced with aggression that is threatening to rob us of the "kind-hearted"?

* While some may balk at the term "Christofascism" the Christian Right's politically aggressive stance has lately paralleled fascism too much to be ignored:  overt NATIONALISM, SEXISM, combination of RELIGION AND GOVERNMENT, protection of CORPORATE POWER, disdain for INTELLECTUALS and THE ARTS ... And in the end, the best explanation was by Sinclair Lewis: "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." 

What Do You Call 410,000 Lawyers And A Federal Judge In Favor Of Marriage Equality?

A Start?

No, Just Serious Wounds to the ADF, the FRC, the AFA, the ACLJ 

(and all the other homophobic acronyms you can think of )

"RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges state, territorial, and tribal governments to eliminate all of their legal barriers to civil marriage between two persons of the same sex who are otherwise eligible to marry."

First, the ruling of Judge Vaughn Walker, now this! OMG! The American Bar Association has just de facto legalized same-sex marriage! The largest and most influential group of legal eagles in the nation (and possibly the world) has come out with a resolution urging all governments to legalize gay marriage. It's mind-boggling! And the timing must have been intended (the Right will call it "conspiratorial"). 410,000 members! How many will resign in protest/disgust?

According to the ADF, that group of bumbling legal eagles (more like legal chickens) people are already starting to turn in their memberships, but, after all, it doesn't speak for many lawyers. Huh? ONE THIRD of U.S. lawyers are members.

“The fact that ADF and other lawyers disagree with ABA on a number of controversial issues demonstrates the gross inaccuracy of ABA’s claim that it speaks for the U.S. legal profession,” remarked ADF Senior Legal Counsel Doug Napier, who resigned from the ABA because of its stance on controversial political issues.

It must have been the word "urges" that got to them.

Anyway, the ABA is still the largest professional organization for lawyers in the country -- and the largest voluntary professional association in the world. And the ABA has one tiny modicum of clout: it accredits law schools. Did the ABA accredit Liberty University School of Law (Jerry Falwell's pet project) or Regent University Law School (Pat Robertson's territory - which buried over 150 of its graduates in George Bush's Department of Justice)? Yes, both are accredited by the ABA.

BUT (and it's a big one) the goal of the ABA is to "Eliminate bias in the legal profession and the justice system" and "Work for just laws, including human rights, and a fair legal process." 

The ABA also requires that all students at ABA-approved schools take an ethics course in professional responsibility.*

Ooops. It may be hard to prove that, say, Regent University Law School's graduates are not professionally responsible or ethical, but the ADF doesn't look like it has that kind of reputation. Especially if it is willing to have "junk science experts" testify in an important trial.

And in endorsing the right of gays to marry, the ABA is stating that it is working toward its goals of "eliminating bias" and working laws concerning human rights. So what will the ethics courses at Liberty and Regent look like from now on? They'll have to practice their rhetorical skills in finding some loophole.

It has just recently been discovered, for example, that Matt Barber, an ever-enlightened dean of Liberty will go to extreme lengths to demonize homosexuality: below is his seminar on arcrotomophilia (sexual attraction to amputees) and its evil link to ENDA. If you're amazed at what Barber can get away with, write to the ABA about Liberty's accreditation.

Hmmm, I wonder how many "philias" they'll be teaching that ALL/MOST gays have? How about: 

Nasophilia (noses) Somnophilia (sleeping people) Macrophilia (giants) Lactophilia (breast milk) Emetophilia (vomit) or the ever popular Ursusagalmatophilia (teddy bears).** Of course, Barber probably figurers that if you can spell it, you must have it. (Teabaggers are so very dull)

The California Seesaw

Considering the up-'n-down situation of same-sex marriage in California, it ought to qualify as a ride in an amusement park: it's on again...well, sort of. It's not clear. Walker declared the stay to be voided on Aug. 18th, PENDING no ability to appeal. If you've been following the trial and its decision, you know that the ABILITY to appeal is in question. The supersonic dimwit defense team of ADF will try to finagle the appeal, but they must have a solid reason, like allowing gay marriage will cause bloodshed (maybe theirs, from Tony Perkins, Bryan Fischer, etc.). Personally, I would love to see them appeal if not for anything but to see them make idiots out of themselves again. I could sell tickets! But an appeal could draw things out for another year, making SSM a hotbutton issue for November. Besides, just how much authority does a "proponent" for a group related to the state proposition have? The Christian Right will make it look like another needless nailbiter and another cause to outs "activist" judges.

Speaking of which...

Walker said on Thursday that ban proponents didn't convince him that anyone would be harmed by allowing same-sex marriages to resume...

Finally, Walker said it also appeared doubtful that the opponents of the ban have any right to appeal his decision striking down a state law that he said should have been defended by either Schwarzenegger and Brown, who both refused to do so.

Judge Walker has taken it on the chin from critics before (even from gays - consider the "Gay Olympics" fracas), but this time he is to be commended just for hanging in there and not stooping to react to critics, like Tony Perkins of the FRC:

The decision to shove Proposition 8 aside so quickly only heaps more outrage on a judge who should have never been allowed to consider the case in the first place. By lifting the "stay" on marriage licenses, he's attempting to plunge the state- and, by extension, the country--into deeper legal chaos just to satisfy his own radical agenda.

...and the following who practically considers him to be the Anti-Christ:

Suzyrice.com:

How Walker’s animus about Christ and Christianity was relevant to his considerations, as to the Constitution, of Proposition 8 shall be left to psychiatrists to determine, but, clearly Judge Walker used the opportunity before him to launch his personal hatred of “society,” about “heterosexuals,” about “the majority (in his ruling, Walker defined “the majority” as society and heterosexuals) and about Christianity.

But let's look at the situation this way: we scored the ABA, a federal judge (appointed by Reagan, btw), the governor of California and the Attorney General of California in a matter of weeks. Our side is beginning to look a bit heavier than theirs right now. 

They don't like it, but...tough.

* wikipedia: Typically, this is an upper-level course; most students take it in the 2L year. This requirement was added after the Watergate scandal, which seriously damaged the public image of the profession because President Richard Nixon and most of his alleged cohorts were lawyers. The ABA desired to demonstrate that the legal profession could regulate itself and hoped to prevent direct federal regulation of the profession.

**For a list of some more "philias" go to wikipedia's page.

Of Masters, Slaves and Blood Diamonds: Just How Much Did Pat Robertson Know?

How dare the President of the United States tell a duly elected leader of another country to step down...we’re undermining a Christian, Baptist President to bring in Muslim rebels to take over the country.

Pat Robertson, 700 Club, criticizing  George Bush for meddling in Liberia's politics

Perhaps Pat Robertson is senile enough to think that the American public buys his stories. Perhaps Pat's God - the works-in-mysterious-ways God - zapped out Pat's memory bank. Perhaps Robertson really didn't know about the horrific crimes of two African dictators. Perhaps ...Oh, hell, there's no alternative: the bastion of Christian Right "rightness" (a la Stephen Colbert) is guilty as sin, but hopes that people won't connect the dots of his greedy, corrupt past.

As the epic war crimes trial of Charles Taylor unfolds (now in its tenth month), Robertson's name keeps coming up as one of Taylor's staunchest supporters. Robertson denies ever having met Taylor, but he has yet to deny that he knew what Taylor was doing to his own populace. He has yet to deny he knew what Mobutu Sese Zaire (Republic of the Congo) did to his own people while they had a  "relationship" back in 1993.  Can a man whose business ventures depend upon slave labor under cruel dictatorships not know anything about those poor creatures who sloughed through mountains of mud every day for food? Even the South's most clueless Simon Legree knew what plight his own slaves went through.

Robertson has breezed by political scandals before, but his association with two mass-murderers should not be overlooked. In fact, his association with Mobutu was even more "unChristian" than his duplicitous relationship with Taylor. And attached to blood diamonds even more than Taylor.

Back in the early nineties, Pat Robertson founded a company called Africa Devlopment Company with the purpose of mining diamonds in Zaire. In order to obtain mining rights, Robertson, (as with Taylor), promised Mobutu Sese Sseko, the president/dictator of Zaire unparalleled access and influence regarding America's foreign policies. Robertson's "sin" during this relationship, however, was in extracting donations from his viewers for relief efforts to war-torn Zaire. Viewers thought that the planes flown by Robertson's Operation Blessing were performing relief operations. 

They were not. Or rather, 40 out of 42 flights were used for transportation of Robertson's (ADC's) mining equipment.

wikipedia:

An investigation by the Commonwealth of Virginia's Office of Consumer Affairs determined that Robertson "willfully induced contributions from the public through the use of misleading statements and other implications" and called for a criminal prosecution against Robertson in 1999. However, Virginia Attorney General Mark Earley, a Republican whose largest campaign contributor two years earlier was Robertson himself, intervened, accepting that Robertson had made deceptive appeals but overruling the recommendation for his prosecution. No charges were ever brought against Robertson.

Then in 1993, 

Mobutu was denied a visa by the U.S. State Department after he sought to visit Washington, D.C. Shortly after this, Robertson tried to get the State Department to lift its ban on the African leader.

We can chide someone like Kathie Lee Gifford about her clothing line being made by child labor, but we must never scold Pat Robertson. He is, after all, a "man of God." Doubtless his faithful followers will trot out the old if-he-didn't-employ-them-they-would-have-starved-to-death meme. 

But the questions still remain: how much did Robertson know about the slave labor in BOTH mining operations? How much did he know about the atrocities? And, if he did know about them, how complicit was he by staying silent, by actually allowing them to go on, by overtly supporting the men responsible for them? Finally, has he thrown enough money at enough influential people so that he can squeak by the Taylor trial without being called in as a defendent? 

Robertson not only maintains that he never met Taylor, but that he spoke to Taylor only once when Taylor called him up allegedly about the gold mining leases. He's also stated he only dealt with papers to members of Liberia's government. But a casual reference to Taylor crumbles under the weight of Robertson's SOLE support of Taylor back in 2003:

from Christianity Today:

In an interview yesterday, Robertson told Cooperman that Freedom Gold was intended to fund humanitarian and evangelical efforts in the country, such as a February 2002 Liberia for Jesus rally, where Taylor reportedly told 65,000 of his subjects, "I am not your president. Jesus is!"

"There are people who say that's phony baloney, but I thought it was sincere," Robertson told Cooperman. "He definitely has Christian sentiments, although you hear of all these rumors that he's done this or done that.

And:

Coucil for Secular Humanism:

Robertson attempted to bring Charles Taylor to Virginia Beach for a big VIP treatment, without success.

Taylor's own testimony:

"Mr. Taylor, indeed at one point you said that you can count on Pat Robertson to get Washington on your side," he was asked by the lead prosecution counsel, Col. Brenda Hollis, a former U.S. Air Force officer. Taylor replied: "I don't recall the exact words, but something to that effect."

Bottom line: Pat Robertson knew about "blood diamonds" before anyone else because he knew what was happening in Zaire with Mobutu and didn't care. He knew about Charles Taylor's evil regime and didn't care. He knew how Zaire and Liberia worker/slaves were treated (and non-compensated) and didn't care. 

Pat Robertson knew about everything.

And didn't care.

MORE ON BLOOD DIAMONDS

We've heard a lot about Mia Farrow vs. Naomi Campbell and "blood diamonds," during the Taylor trial. Well, I'm sorry, but...BFD. The real story lies in the testimonies of the other 90 witnesses who spoke of the wanton cruelty and inhumanity of Taylor's regime. Here's a snip:

the Slate:

The prosecution's case depends on proving two things: first, that crimes were committed in Sierra Leone; second, that Taylor had direct involvement in their execution. Of the 91 witnesses called by prosecutors, some of the most disturbing testimonyJoseph "Zigzag" Marzah, one of Taylor's former Liberian militia commanders. Much of Marzah's time on the stand was spent establishing that Taylor was a truly horrible leader of Liberia. Marzah described roadblocks adorned with human intestines and severed heads and said Taylor had ordered a pregnant woman to be buried alive behind the presidential palace for a sacrifice. He also claimed that Taylor had ordered his Liberian soldiers to eat their slain enemies in order to instill fear in the population. Marzah detailed how human bodies were prepared. "We lay you down, slit your throat and butcher you," Marzah said, "put it in a pot and cook it." Salt and pepper, he explained, are added to taste.

Go to Diamonds for Africa to find out how horrible life is in Sierra Leone and the rest of West Africa.

Kanye West knew about the situation even before Taylor's trial. Below is his video about "blood diamonds." You'll notice that the backdrop for the video was the beautiful city of Prague. What the video does not show you, however, is the famous diamond monstrance of Loreto (pictured above). I'm sure West tried to have it photographed, but the church refused. He must have been struck with "shock and awe" as well as a bit of disgust. Years ago, that same monstrance caused a man to cry about the abomination of organized religion when he set eyes on it.

I will never forget that moment in my life. Never.

The Prop 8 Decision: Can We Laugh Now?

I won't lie: I had a hell of a time writing this. Oh, it was fun, to be sure, because any situation involving the Christian Right always comes with its own form of amusement. In fact, it seems that the CR holds dear the maxim "we've made a religion out of entertainment and an entertainment out of religion." But this time, I was torn between the ridiculous and the just plain disgusting: on one hand knowing that the CR reacted ridiculously and on the other that the CR reacted so viciously that "Christian" had no business being part of its label.

The decision handed down by Federal Judge Vaughn Walker about the Right's ban on same-sex marriages in California hit every nerve in the body of the CR. I'm sure that remarks about his sexuality will be the least bothersome to him. And while I haven't yet read about death threats, it goes without saying that there will be some. You can't be that stupid to think that if you say that his decision will bring about Armageddon,  no one will get out their crayons and scrawl a note.*


Such is the fine line between comedy and tragedy in this case: we laugh and cry at the same time at the Right's handling of the case/trial and of its reactions. The plot of the Prop 8 play had so very many twists and turns, so many elements: religion, politics, deceit, ineptitude, money, fear, power and greed. And pathos (in the form of love fighting hate) hung in front of them like some dingy scrim. Certainly from the Left's point of view, it was a "tale told by an idiot." The CR cobbled the script together with snippets of ideologies they thought everyone wanted to hear while they paid no attention to the laws and mores protecting a diverse (and secular) society. Some unschooled people of the audience fell for all the machinations, while most looked on in amazement because the clueless CR wound up portraying itself: reactionary, ruthless and lacking reason.

At this point, we have to ask ourselves what drugs the Protect Marriage (Prop 8) people were on when they asked the Alliance Defense Fund to represent them as proponents for the trial? To say that they were inept presents a lack of depth: they were horrendously stupid. 

 - They did not know before the trial that PROPONENTS OF  THE TRIAL HAVE NO "STANDING" TO APPEAL!! Only the governor and the attorney general have a right to appeal since the state of California was on trial and NOT Protect Marriage. Proponents are merely legal counsel to supporters of the defense. 

 - ADF CANCELLED all of their pertinent witnesses except two: David  Blankenhorn and William Tam.  

Proponents elected not to call the majority of their designated witnesses to testify at trial and call not a single official proponent of Proposition 8 presented to voters and the arguments presented in court. 

And they never vetted them properly (or at all) nor did they practice in a mock trial. Both witnesses were deemed completely unacceptable by the judge. They had no pertinent academic credentials and they both had ties to the George Reeker scandal as well. When asked about sources for a statement, William Tam gave one of the most anemic answers in trial history "I found it on the internet."

While they were supposedly acting as proponents for the State of California (NOT Protect Marriage), they did nothing to prove that the State of California would be harmed in any way by same-sex marriages. NOTE: Judge Walker has been known to weigh heavily on economic impact in cases like these. They certainly didn't do their homework.

Neither Blankenhorn nor Tam could come up with plausible reasons for the vicious ads placed during the campaign. In fact, these "experts" couldn't explain much of anything. The whole campaign was clearly discriminatory. And the defense folded before everyone's eyes. As with Mark Twain's sentiment above, monkeys might have done better.

Their slowly diminishing I.Q not withstanding, the proponents not only threw away their own case, but placed in stark contrast the points that Walker focused upon:

•  The defendants were backed by a "broad coalition" of churches.
•  No state has ever required "individuals entering a marriage be willing or able to        procreate."
•  Domestic partnerships "lack the social meaning associated with marriage."
• The purpose of Proposition 8 - evidenced by its campaign - was to portray gays and lesbians as less worthy of marriage and therefore less than equal citizens.
•  They could not prove that same-sex marriage would in any way harm families or the citizens of California.

The Alliance Defense Fund DID PROVE that if you say "God" "Bible" "Family" and (probably) "abomination" enough, you can convince any Christianist to hire you. 

Has Protect Marriage asked for its money back?

As entertaining as the trial was, the reaction to its decision was stellar in its righteous outrage:

- Pat Robertson (the last to chime in, perhaps because God took too much time explaining it to him): "Why, homosexuals want to destroy the church"


- Tony Perkins: 

Despite Walker 's own biases, which are woven into all 136 pages of the court's opinion, protecting marriage is not discriminatory. Nor is it, as he mocked, an "artifact" rooted in "unfounded stereotypes and prejudices."

(BTW: Perkins had a tough time alluding to Walker's gayness on Face the Nation: he looked the complete homophobe in spite of himself)

- Tim Wildmon, leader of the American Family Association: 

“tyrannical, abusive and utterly unconstitutional” and  “It’s also extremely problematic that Judge [Vaughn] Walker is a practicing homosexual himself. … His situation is no different than a judge who owns a porn studio being asked to rule on an anti-pornography statute.” 

 Wildmon later called for Walker's impeachment.


- Bastion for the sanctity of marriage Newt Gingrich called the ruling a:

 “notorious decision” and showed “outrageous disrespect for the Constitution.”


 - Andy Pugno, general counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund (heretofore known as the  Loony Lawyers League), said Walker had

“literally accused the majority of California voters of having ill and discriminatory intent”  

 - Robert George of the American Principles Project said that same-sex marriage supporters have a  “revolutionary sexual ideology.” 

 -  The decision shocked Richard Land, past president of the Southern Baptist Convention, so much that he didn't put "God" in his pronouncement: 

"This is a grievously serious crisis in how the American people will choose to be governed,” he said. “If and when the Supreme Court agrees with the lower court, then the American people will have to decide whether they will insist on continuing to have a government of the people, by the people and for the people, or whether they’re going to live under the serfdom of government by the judges, of the judges and for the judges.”

 - Maggie Gallagher, chairman of National Organization for Marriage (NOM):

If this ruling is upheld, ...Parents will find that, almost Soviet-style, their own children will be re-educated using their own tax dollars to disrespect their parents' views and values.

 - And finally, Bryan Fischer of American Family Association:

What they want is not equal rights, but special rights. They want a special exemption carved out for them so that their sexually aberrant relationships can be recognized as marriages, an exemption we don’t grant to folks who want to marry a son or a daughter, or a mother or a father, an uncle or an aunt, or a child.

Just in: American Family Association provided the biggest laugh today by presenting the results of a OneNewsNow.com poll. But accident (or was it - horrors! - sabotage?) the poll gave people  a choice that included the Supreme Court as an answer:

Which entity should have the final say in whether same-gender 'marriage' is legal? 

Congress - 0.64%

The Supreme Court - 85.77%

State legislatures - 1.49%

Voters - 12.10%

As if to cement the ADF and Protect Marriage people in their place, Judge Walker  threw some proverbial pies in their faces in his Fact section of the decision. IF an appeal is granted, these are the ONLY points that will be considered by the appeals court - no new wacko witnesses or dubious "studies":

• 
  
  

  Religious leaders may determine independently whether to recognize a civil marriage or divorce but that recognition or lack thereof has no effect on the relationship under state law.

• 
  
  

  California, like every other state, has never required that individuals entering a marriage be willing or able to procreate.

• 
  
  

  That the majority of California voters supported Proposition 8 is irrelevant, as 'fundamental rights may not be submitted to [a] vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.'"

AND:

Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against gays and lesbians.

So there we have it: a bumbling, disorganized, clueless defense chasing after same-sex marriage and the "homosexual agenda" followed by The Christian Right reactionaries, their billy clubs of arrogant self-righteousness waving in the air. 

Yes, we can laugh now.

*Stock tip: Crayola.

To clarify some of the hilarity that went on, watch an indredulous, can't-stop-laughing Rachel Maddow: