Coming up: One red heifer, without blemish or spot?

Per the old bible verse of Numbers 19:2, Texas Monthly reports on the efforts of rancher Jerome Urbanosky and businessman Byron Stinson to raise just such animals. (Another rancher, Ty Davenport, eventually has his ranch looped in by Stinson, too.)

Stinson is a Christian Zionist wingnut. Urbanosky raises Santa Gertrudis, which caught his eye. The story says Stinson also looked at Red Angus.

The entire red heifer and purification water ceremony is in Numbers 19. Not all Christian Zionists, nor all religiously Orthodox Jewish Zionists, believe the red heifer is necessary to build a new Jewish temple, but many do. Ultra-Orthodox Jews are generally non-Zionist to outrightly anti-Zionist; their stances on temple rebuilding in general as well as the need for a red heifer can vary. Within Christianity, amillennial Christians reject the entire temple rebuilding nuttery as being necessary to bring on the apocalypse. On paper, this is the official stance of Catholicism, Orthodoxy and all mainline Protestant churches. In reality, it's not so clearcut among the laity. Outside of this, postmillennialists also generally reject this.

Shockingly, the Monthly gets several things wrong.

First, technically, it's to enter the tabernacle, not the temple. TM quotes Numbers 19 as saying "temple"; it does not.

Second, as with much of Numbers, there's no indication on how much this was ideal and aspirational vs being real, per Yonathan Adler's book.

Third, it was for general purification as much as anything. 

Fourth, there's no indication in either the Tanakh or the New Testament that it was specifically necessary for temple rebuilding. (The Monthly does note that Orthodox Judaism sees a temple already ready to come down from heaven; see also Revelation.)

Yitshak Mamo, Stinson's partner, is an ultra-Zionist Israel settler colonialist nutter. 

Related to that, the Monthly does tell you this:

Urbanosky told me he knew “doodley-squat” about the significance of a perfect red heifer. “You’re Christian, and they’re Jews,” Urbanosky said to Stinson. “So when the Temple gets built, who’s coming back, Jesus or the Jewish messiah?”

There you go. Millennialist Christian Zionist and Zionist Jews figure that, like other things, they'll fight it out after they kill the last Palestinian and finish making Eretz Israel Arab-rein. 

Cut to the chase: Five heifers eventually got sent to Israel in 2022. (The Monthly and other sites have reported on this before.) Hamas noticed and mentioned this in early 2024, after the start of the current intifada; and the Israeli rabbi who will have the last word on making the purity call says they're not.)

According to [Rabbi Joshua] Wander, Rabbi Azria Ariel, of the Temple Institute, is the world’s foremost authority on the red heifer and perhaps the only figure with the clout to compel the necessary consensus to move forward. Ariel wasn’t satisfied with the candidates. “At this moment, it is unclear whether we have in our possession in Israel a red heifer that is verifiably kosher and suited for the ceremony,” Ariel announced in March 2025. One of the five heifers had sprouted white hairs; another grew warts on the side of its neck.

There you are. Perhaps it's a stall tactic, too. 

It gets nuttier from there, with Stinson eventually finding some Israeli Jews, including an alleged priest raised for this moment, to do a practice red heifer ceremony. From there, Stinson goes MAHA with the ashes.

The author does note that the claims of Stinson and his ilk are rejected by mainstream scholars, but not until the last paragraph. 

Viva Raunuq Alam! Fuck Brian Bolton, Phil Sorrells and a lesser fuck for Kuff

Thank doorknob a Tarrant County jury rejected a Zionist/religious right/general wingnut attempt to convict Raunaq Alam of a hate crime for graffiting a church with "Fuck Israel." (Said church was flying an Israeli flag as the main reason it was targeted during a random drive by Alam and two friends.) That said, fuck judge Brian Bolton for what at least verges on the spirit of false imprisonment. And fuck Charles Kuffner, nominal head cheese of what remains of the Texas Progressives Alliance, for not writing anything about Palestinian issues, not even here in Tex-ass. Kuff, you're a fellow traveler with the likes of Tarrant DA Phil Sorrells.

Reich: Harvard donors could fuel antisemitism with Gay axing

Robert Reich thinks that Harvard's donor class, namely its Zionist members, risk fueling actual antisemitism by chasing out President Claudine Gay. This:

As a Jew, I also cannot help but worry that the actions of these donors – many of them Jewish, many from Wall Street – could fuel the very antisemitism they claim to oppose, based on the age-old stereotype of wealthy Jewish bankers controlling the world.

Is the nut graf, though the last one in the story.

It's hard to argue with this. That of course wouldn't justify such antisemitism, but, again, it's hard to argue with Reich's fear that it will trigger such antisemitism.

Beyond Reich, it's hard to argue that this doesn't reflect on how things like the "military-industrial complex," or, vis-a-vis foreign policy, what I call theNat-Sec Nutsacks™, are not a stereotype but reality. (They may be a generalization, but sweeping observations that are 51 percent or more true, to riff on informal logic, are generalizations, not stereotypes.) And, as part of that, it reflects on the generalization that, in the Middle East, Zionism, hand in hand with the Christian Religious Right, drives those two.

Also, per Reich, it bodes not so well for Harvard's future:

I can understand the frustrations of these donors. But to use their influence to force the ouster of these university presidents is an abuse of power. It sets a dangerous precedent of mega-donor intrusion into university life.

To go beyond Reich, when the Harvards of the university world stoke fears about Trumpian-like quashing of academic freedom, state government and other attacks on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion efforts in academia and more, these donor actions cut out the ground from underneath them.

(Update: I called it! Bill Ackman said DEI is next in his gunsights.)

==

This afternoon, NPR was discussing the Gay resignation, through an interview with the editor of the Harvard Crimson. And, got almost nothing correct, or at least, hid the reality of Gay's last two months.

For that, we go to Mondoweiss.

First, rather than than tolerating antisemitism, back in November she was trying to censor "from the river to the sea" being used on campus. A month before that, the Harvard Grad Union called on her to get doxxing of Palestinian activists and other anti-Palestinian activities to stop.

Second, there was a raft of McCarthyist (the original one and the guy just booted as Speaker, both) type of original cancel culture behind the recent House hearings by Rep. Elise Stefanik, the ones that hung Gay out to dry. Stefanik, herself arguably actually antisemitic, basically gaslighted Gay and two other university presidents at her hearing.

That said, Gay, along with Penn's Liz Magill and MIT's Sally Kornbluth, offered Stefanik plenty of rope for the self-lynching, Mondoweiss notes, by not challenging her absurdity that "from the river to the sea" is genocidal. 

And, re the #BlueAnon chuds? Many House Democrats played right along.

Finally, the day after the resignation, a new guest commenter at Mondoweiss, a South African-American and fellwo Black American, noted she was both furious FOR Gay for being the target of racial and/or sexual related bullying and also furious AT Gay for putting up with ongoing blatant anti-Palestinian activities at Harvard and even, arguably enabling them. She notes the doxxing affected the safety of Black students at Harvard, among others.

This:

Let me be clear: President Gay was forced out not because she is antisemitic and/or anti-Zionist but because she is not Zionist enough. The Congressional hearing on December 5 was little more than political theater in which right-wing leaders created and seized an opportunity to undermine core tenets of liberal arts institutions and divert attention from the genocide in Gaza.

What else can you say? Well, you can say, as I did above, that all three presidents gave Stefanik et al the rope to hange them after gaslighting them. And as linked via Mondoweiss, Gay's post-resignation inked NYT op-ed STILL doesn't push back against this.

It's even worse than Michael Arria's one quote at Mondoweiss. Per the linked piece above by Aaryan Morrison, Gay's column is groveling to Harvard. 

This, a different quote than Arria's:

Those who had relentlessly campaigned to oust me since the fall often trafficked in lies and ad hominem insults, not reasoned argument.

Indicates how she doesn't get it. The antisemitic smears were of a piece with and intertwined with the racist ones. Gay simply doesn't get the whole issue of weaponized Zionism.

And, tying the two issues together? At The Nation, Dave Zirin says that DEI's lack of objective metrics and such allows Zionists to claim they're being picked on whenever a Palestinian flag is waved in their direction.

That said? Contra Mondoweiss' Philip Weiss, I'm not so sanguine about today's American Jewish youth saving the religion here in the US, especially if this war goes on a lot longer with blank checks from the American political establishment and the American Jewish establishment. Rather, the elders of that Jewish establishment are likely to somewhat self-genocide their own religion. I expect most younger non-Zionist American Jews to abandon even Reform-type Judaism, even for Pesach at a Reform synagogue.

Gay rights, college affirmative action take it in the shorts in favor of "poor, persecuted Christians"

Today, SCOTUS allowed discrimination against gays in the 303 Creative ruling, even with the case almost certainly being based on a fake order, indeed, a fake gay man, for the basis of the complainant's suit. Sotomayor nails it.

In a dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote: “Today, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class.” She was joined by the court’s two other liberals, Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Sotomayor said that the decision’s logic “cannot be limited to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.” A website designer could refuse to create a wedding website for an interracial couple, a stationer could refuse to sell a birth announcement for a disabled couple, and a large retail store could limit its portrait services to “traditional” families, she wrote.

Exactly right, and that leads to yesterday's ruling, basically gutting affirmative action in college admissions.

What's to stop a new Bob Jones University from refusing to admit Blacks period, and saying that past decisions removing it from federal educational funds was wrong? Especially if it's a religious institution?

By the way, all of this, per the first link, show that the tired old meme of "poor, persecuted Christians" is nothing but Religious Right bullshit. But, going beyond the AP piece at top link, this is nothing new. Hobby Lobby winning its contraceptive lawsuit against Dear Leader show this has been a steady current for 15 years now.

That said, per a National Review piece, on colleges, and Sen. Tim Scott? Why don't you end legacy admissions? Per many leftists, this would also, indirectly, address a class issue. Librulz are on the losing end of this if they don't push for it. (And, at the national level, they won't; another reason I'm a leftist.)

Corey Robin claims 303 Creative was NOT about religion. Oh, in a technical sense, he's right. The plaintiff (besides having a fake basis for the suit) cited Freeze Peach, but it was ultimately free speech in the service of religious issues. Wiki gets that right, Corey. And you apparently don't read analysis of past or present Supreme Court decisions. Shit, your own piece has Smith saying she didn't BELIEVE in gay marriage. In a quote-tweeting, Robin stands by his statement. I referenced the immediately above, plus the Hobby Lobby angle, in a reply.

Various streams of loathsomeness intersect over Allen shooting

Explicitly, I'm talking all the "thoughts and prayers," I mean "tots and prayers" crowd. I'm also explicitly talking Allen's Congresscritter, Rep. Keith Self, and the Libertarian National Committee Chairwoman, Angela McArdle. There's plenty of implicit loathsomeness beyond that.

The Allen Premium Outlets mass shooting will surely lead the Lege to ... do nothing, as has been the case in the past. (Well, maybe it will mandate that all malls have armed guards.) Or, like Rep. Keith Self, who represents Allen, you can say that "almighty god ... absolutely is in control of our lives" as a justification for doing nothing.

Meanwhile, on Twitter, Mises Caucus thrall and head of the Libertarian National Committee Andrea McArdle offers this nuttery:

Potential Theory: Mass shootings in "nice" areas make national news more often than gun violence in low income, urban areas because corporate media & politicians think progressives are more outraged by shootings in "nice" areas.
Yes, no, maybe?

— Angela McArdle (@angela4LNCChair) May 7, 2023

After telling her the truth about Allen and Rep. Keith Self (truth she should already already know, as she currently lives here in Tex-ass), including a kick in her nads by telling her that he was almost a Mises Caucus Libertarian, I of course told her to fuck off. Let's also not forget, per Wiki, her support for German New Medicine (and on Tim Cess Pool's podcast, no less) an antisemitic conspiracy theory.

 

At the state level, the Lege could take one action immediately: Pass HB 2744, to raise the age of purchase of AR-15s and similar from 18 to 21. But, neither the tots and pears there, nor the libertarian wingnuts, will back that idea. League of Women Voters also says that HB 636, which would allow election judges to bring guns to polling places, should be blocked. Agreed. In today's world in general it's stupid, and in #StartTheSteal world of conspiracy theories, it's stupider yet.

Punking pro-life wingnuts on fetal stem cells

This is a story that is at root about COVID vaccines, but it has much larger import.

The CEO of an Arkansas hospital group noted how many of his staff were filing "religious exemption" claims to not get vaccinated, mandatory now at the hospital group in question. Specifically, he noted the number of exemption requests based on fetal stem cell lines in the vaccine.

Matt Troup, CEO of Conway Regional Health System, said fine.

And, one-upped them. You wanna avoid the vaccine? You must also avoid:

Tylenol, Pepto Bismol, aspirin, Tums, Lipitor, Senokot, Motrin, ibuprofen, Maalox, Ex-Lax, Benadryl, Sudafed, albuterol, Preparation H, MMR vaccine, Claritin, Zoloft, Prilosec OTC, and azithromycin.

That's not all on the list of 30 products in a counter-statement, but it is the most common.

More here. Employees wanting to claim the exemption but refusing to sign Troup's paperwork are given a provisional exemption, which can be revoked at any time. (One wonders if Troup is busy soliciting applications, to be prepared for such revocations down the road.)

Anyway, that second link cites an MD who also identifies as Catholic and says this is all true.

So, the next time some Catholic within three degrees of the world of Opus Dei says "I can't do X cuz fetal stem cells," ask them what they do for a headache. Ask them what they do for allergies.

Coronavirus, week 33: Salvific technologism fails

• Remember how, months ago, smartphone contact tracing apps were touted as having a big role in what was already then, a la the War on Drugs, War on Poverty, etc., being touted as the War on Coronavirus?

Don't hear about them much now, do you? Why not?

Per Time, they have have largely been a #fail, and it explains why.

First, per a graph from the story, they've obviously NOT been a(s much a) fail elsewhere. Ireland has 37 percent adoption, vs. Virginia as the top US state with just over 10 percent. So, why a fail in Merika?

First, blame The Donald.

Second, blame tech companies themselves for the degree to which modern smartphones CAN track people, and paranoia even beyond that. (Note that Ireland's 37 percent, as the top country on the chart, and Germany's 27 percent, means this one isn't just an American issue.)

Third, blame states for not touting the apps more, with or without Trump and a non-response at the federal level.

• The Observer talks about how the virus has hastened the exposure of crumbling holes in the superstructure of Texas health care and, just as much if not more, in the superstructure of what is allegedly public health in Texas. 

• Rice University students have gone low-tech with results. A student community court tries students accused of violating mask and social distance rules.

• The Cut offers a story of a person seeing their grandfather die, and calling out Dan Patrick and his "duty to die," who actually is nothing compared to the editor of First Things, who this spring dove DEEP into the empty pool of Religious Right wingnuttery, Catholic division, claiming that the degree some people were going to save lives was "demonic." No, really. I hadn't realized until reading this JUST how much Conservative Cafeteria Catholics had sold their souls.

• Skeptical Raptor says pump the brakes on Pfizer's potential vaccine. Beyond the "peer review by PR," he of course says lets get some real peer review. And, that -100F (-75C) storage requirement? Rural areas in the US likely out. Tropical areas around the world likely out. 

• That's as Moderna says: "Our PR staff says that our vaccine is just as good as Pfizer's PR staff says its vaccine is." The MSM is idiots about more than politics.

• For the second time in a month, I've called out NYT science writer Carl Zimmer for printing PR. And, again, suggested he needs to read Skeptical Raptor, Orac and the like before writing. It's a sad thing that it's happened twice now, not just once. 

• ProPublica says pump the brakes on rapid antigen tests, held out as the hope for all sorts of things, such as the NBA having fans at games in its new season. Currently, they're riddled with false positives and can be misleading if not used carefully and correctly.

• Costco has eliminated medical exemption claims loopholes. You wanna shop there? Wear a damn mask. Per my boycotts and semi-boycotts, all retailers that offer pickup or delivery service should do this. 

• Chiropractors were HUGE antivaxxers when the polio vaccine came out. Why? IMO, a mix of true belief in the pseudomedicine claims for chiropractic and, per we journos, follow the money.

• Silver lining news, sadly temporary? The city of San Antonio has temporarily let kayakers and canoers use the Riverwalk area of the San Antonio River.

• Gov. Noem continues to death-wish the people of South Dakota even as she and her press secretary flunky claim she's presented the "full scope of the science" to residents. Nope. She lies about masks even as deaths soar.

• Mink coronavirus is a thing, but contra Counterpunch (not linking!) seemingly less of a thing than the mag claims.

• The US is now past 250,000 deaths. Will we hit 300,000 before the end of the year? Quite possibly. Zeynef Tufecki is the latest to sound the holidays alarm.

Top blogging for July 2020

No. 1? My takedown of the hypocritical signers of the anti "cancel culture" Harper's letter, many of them guilty themselves of cancel culture.

No. 2? One from this spring, goosed to new life on Twitter because of John MacArthur's hypocrisy in California, as I called out Protestant megachurches and pastors for being sinful anti-Romans 13 rebels.

No. 3? An old one, still trending, and possibly with some hacker reverse-SEO bugging it, about whether or not a college can discriminate against a religious campus group.

No. 4? Another takedown, this one of Texas Monthly for believing "poor me" BS out of the mouth of a fracking oil company president.

No. 5? Got a theme going here. Another takedown, this one of Young Republicans PR masquerading as Black Lives Matter support in Gainesville, Texas.

No. 6? Thoughts on the bankruptcy and post-bankruptcy future of McClatchy Newspapers, about the best chain of larger dailies out there these days.

No. 7? Week 15 of coronavirus coverage with my renewed split in my installment of the Texas Progressives weekly roundup. (No. 10 was about Week 16.)

No. 8 was my not-so-fond advance farewell to one of John Wiley Price's biggest hacks foisted on Dallas County residents, elections administrator Toni Pippins-Poole.

No. 9? Going meta, it was my top June blogging.

New York Times "discovers" today's Religious Right, wants news "consumers" to know its genius

"Christianity will have power"? Yes, it's a nice phrase, but ... was one line in one speech in Iowa enough to elevate the speech into Donald Trump's version of a Cornerstone Speech vis-a-vis his relationship to the Religious Right?

The New York Times would have you think so, and with throwing in some breathless marketing Tweets, further confirms why I wouldn't pay to subscribe.

First, two of those marketing Tweets and my responses:

Understanding religion requires reading @elizabethjdias, one of the best religion reporters in the business. She spent months on this piece explaining Donald Trump's support among white evangelical Christians and it shows. https://t.co/7VJissul9R

— Marc Lacey (@marclacey) August 9, 2020

Uhh, no. I don't "need" anyone.

Actually, no, I don't need Elizabeth Dias at all for "understanding religion." I'm an atheist with a graduate divinity degree from a seminary far more rigorous than Religious Right bible colleges, the type of person the Religious Right hates.

— Nagasaki 75: Remember the FULL STORY 🚩🌻 (@AFCC_Esq) August 9, 2020

There you are, Mr. NYT National Editor Marc Lacey.

Then this:

If you have found yourself baffled by white evangelical support for Trump, this extraordinary piece by @elizabethjdias is for you. This is journalism as translation, requiring literacy in multiple cultures.https://t.co/vxL3VmfNoM

— Jia Lynn Yang (@jialynnyang) August 9, 2020

Sorry, but no translator needed, Ms. Deputy National Editor Yang.

Here you are:

Nope, not baffled. But?! Elizabeth Dias left stuff on the table, like not delving into the "martyr" mentality held by much of the Religious Right. (It's not quite as deep as Jehovah's Witnesses martyr mentality, but it's deep enough.) https://t.co/qrQLFPYHkq

— Nagasaki 75: Remember the FULL STORY 🚩🌻 (@AFCC_Esq) August 9, 2020

And, since I posted a link to my original Tweet thread in that Tweet, I'll use it as the basic for finishing up this post.

First, per the header, yes, this is typical NYT bullshit, thinking it's discovered something new, when in reality it has not. Related to that is the quasi-bigfooting idea that if anybody else wrote about this in other media before, it didn't count because they weren't the NYT.

Second is the marketing of this geenyus to today's "consumers" (god I hate that word) of news. Trotting out two of your top editors to Tweet away shows that. It's also pretty heavy-handed. Laughably so.

First, before the Twitter thread, one more example of the NYT's alleged brilliance at being Captain Obvious? This:

The Trump era has revealed the complete fusion of evangelical Christianity and conservative politics, even as white evangelical Christianity continues to decline as a share of the national population.

In reality, with data research sites like Pew having written about this for three or four years straight now, the "Rise of the Nones" (which is a broader issue than just the decline of conservative evangelical Xianity, and blogged about me three years ago, as well as last year) is yesterday's news. As for the "complete fusion" issue? Forty years ago, the Religious Right backed for president a man who had expanded abortion access while governor of California, who never went to church and who consulted astrologers. (Ronnie turned Nancy on to that, not the other way around.)

Now, onto my original Twitter thread, with this blogpost being added to the end of it after being finished.

First:

Cliff Notes "Christianity will have power"
1. White #ReligiousRight Xns used to be able to bully America as Trump bullied tenants
2. SCOTUS has #FirstAmendment rulings
2A. America changed
3. So, Rel Right became #snowflakes
4. Trump came as bully-saviorhttps://t.co/HG0FV7gHeL

— Nagasaki 75: Remember the FULL STORY 🚩🌻 (@AFCC_Esq) August 9, 2020

See, that "bully" part is important. Per "The Rise of the Nones" issues, the Religious Right has been losing power for some time. Rather than sidle up to Hillary Clinton and her conservative DC prayer circle warrior background with The Fellowship, though, because she was pro-choice, and ignoring that Trump long had been so, they backed Trump.

The bullying? Bullying and shaming people into expression of religious belief in small town America, even in blue states (Galloway vs Town of Greece) was and still is a real thing. Remember, most members of the Religious Right hate atheists even more than gays, and may hate non-Christians, especially Mooslims, almost as much.

OK, next:

Cliff Notes "Christianity will have power" part 2
5. #ReligiousRight has long been hypocrites
5A. Being #snowflakes w/ back-of-hand-to-forehead martyrdom was used 2 justify doubling down on hypocrisy
6. Trump's sense of faux martyrdom was flame 2 moths 2/xhttps://t.co/HG0FV7gHeL

— Nagasaki 75: Remember the FULL STORY 🚩🌻 (@AFCC_Esq) August 9, 2020

The hypocrisy? Detailed above with Ronnie and Nancy Reagan. The faux-martyrdom goes hand in hand, and parallels, to link back to the "Cornerstone Speech" 1861, the South's faux-martyrdom after Lincoln's election. Fortunately, the Religious Right isn't getting to totally write or rewrite the history of the last 50-60 years of American life as a new Lost Cause, though people like Dias may be helping.

Trump has played the faux-martyr role to a T since HUD sued him and his dad 50 years ago for racism in apartment renting. He knows how to play an audience like a cheap fiddle.

Next:

Cliff Notes "Christianity will have power" part 3
7. Unmentioned by .@elizabethjdias as secular #MAGA #TrumpTrain ppl touted idea of "own the libs," esp w/ Hillary Clinton running, many of the #ReligiousRight esp. leadership, dreamed of "owning the liberal Christians" 3/x

— Nagasaki 75: Remember the FULL STORY 🚩🌻 (@AFCC_Esq) August 9, 2020

This is true in conservative Catholic circles as well, something ELSE Dias left on the table. (Per the old phrase "cafeteria Catholics," there are conservative cafeteria Catholics, on the death penalty and gun control, just like there are liberal cafeteria Catholics on reproductive choice.)

And last, one other thing Dias left on the table (well, there's yet more, but this covers the basics):

Cliff Notes "Christianity will have power" part 4
8. One other big issue Elisabeth Dias left on the table is the issue before the Religious Right backing Trump vs. Democrats; it's the 2016 primaries issue of the #ReligiousRight backing Trump vs. other Republicans. 4/x

— Nagasaki 75: Remember the FULL STORY 🚩🌻 (@AFCC_Esq) August 9, 2020

Remember, Trump's speech was in Iowa, January 2016, before the Iowa caucuses. On paper, Dominionist Ted Cruz and his Seven Mountains daddy were the ideal candidates for the Religious Right to back. So, why didn't they? (Pew notes that, in polling, the most devout among the evangelicals DID tilt Cruz, even though, overall, the Religious Right tilted Trump. Obvious deduction? Lots of these people may be sincere in their belief claims but don't go to church that often!)

And why didn't Dias ask any of the people she interviewed those questions, whether about who they backed in 2016's primary/caucus, or about how regular they were in their churchgoing?

And, National Editor and Deputy National Editor, why didn't her editor catch that?

Also missing? Some local and regional demographics.

Did you know that Sioux Center isn't THAT small? More than 7,000 people and growing quite nicely since 2000, per City-Data. Did you know that, including the college students who claim residency there, it's still better-off than the Iowa average? Did you know it's less than an hour from Sioux City, Iowa, population 80,000 and metro area 180,000, and a flat hour from Sioux Falls, South Dakota, population 185,000 and metro 265K?

And, looking back locally, the college has 1,400 students. So, what, 40 faculty? Even at a small religious college, they're not being paid total peanuts. The typical associate professor there probably makes 10K a year more than a teacher at the public school district with similar experience.

In other words, Sioux Center isn't the Idaho Panhandle or something.

Were I doing this as an Amazon book review? This would be like seeing a new book with five-star touts turning out to be three stars at best.

#GunControl, gay rights — the #ReligiousRight shoots itself in the long-term foot

Last year, according to a Gallup Poll survey, theistic evolutionists, by self-report, hit the same number as creationists. AND, pure naturalists on life development were up to nearly 20 percent.

Other surveys show that liberal Christians may actually outnumber the Religious Right and that "Nones" (who are NOT all, or nearly all, atheists — down, Gnu Atheists) continue to grow. I talked about that in a bit more detail in this post last year.

So, in all the talk about who's politicizing gun violence, surely the Religious Right, to the degree it writes blank checks to gun nutz in general, and at top fiscal levels, stays in bed with the NRA. Even in small towns, it surely bleeds a small drip to liberal Christianity, and maybe even a small drip to Nones, as it does this.

I mean, you're saying, you believe in a god who is omnipotent but can't stop the gun violence. Why? Not even Pat Robertson et al have gone down the road of claiming that gun violence, like AIDS, is god's punishment for sinners in America. They know where that would land.

That said, from my POV, liberal Christians, when we get past politics, face their own theodicy problems on this issue. If they really want to go down the road of "god's inscrutability," they come off as no better than fundamentalists. And, god isn't chastising the NRA at this point.

Gun control was the most obvious one a week ago.

But, Mike Huckabee's resignation from the board of the Country Music Association Foundation after just one day illustrates that in the country music world that infiltrates red states, gay rights is a big deal there, too. Oh, sure, the Religious Right can turn to gospel or contemporary Christian, but the idea that country music, even excluding "outlaw" country, is a conservative monolith, appears to be shattering for public viewing.

Why the #ReligiousRight backs Trump, racism, sexism and all

Many people of the center or liberalism wonder how many people of the Religious Right, including ministers such as Robert Jeffress and Jerry Falwell Jr., could embrace Donald Trump, and not only embrace him, but do so openly, not at arm’s length.

A constellation of reasons converge, with the ultimate answer being —

IT'S IN THEIR CULTURAL DNA.

(Update: The website Religion Dispatches largely agrees, from somewhat inside the movement.)

One, the Religious Right has made it’s bed with the GOP, so that’s where it’s going to sleep, period.

Related to that is the simple element of tribalism. Go, they’ll swallow hard and accept his sexual shenanigans.

Many of them accept his ideas and treatment of women in general, without, in theory, supporting extramarital sex or Trump’s brazenness. That said, the almost totally male faith leaders of the Religious Right also support Type A males acting like stereotypical Type A males in general.

As far as the racial elements of Trumpism, and the Religious Right’s acceptance of that?

This piece shows that the protestations of the Religious Right, or those who claim to be affiliated with it, of "no true Scotsman" re the likes of Jerry Falwell Jr. and Robert Jeffress endorsing Trump, simply don't ring true. The racist, or quasi-racist, background of a large chunk of the Religious Right runs pretty long and pretty deep. (I would complain about the header; per the body of the story, Trump did no "hijacking.") 

Related to that is the idea that many everyday Trumpists are part of the Religious Right, but in a different way. Many of these people may not go to church that often, but they have their own version of tribalism. They identify with a cultural “Christianism” that in many ways parallels Islamism, the para-Islamic set of beliefs held by many conservative Muslims in its heartland.

So, they’re fine with the Falwells et al cozying up to Trump even if they see the Falwells as being less “of the people” than some of them still think Trump is.

And, back to that link. The people in the pews, the people not in the pews but in the culture, and the faith leaders all, like Trump, surely still see blacks as “uppity” in some way.

And, that’s how things tie together.

And, there’s a deeper history behing this.

The Atlantic spells out the long history of American and white nationalism, with a bright line from Duke to Trump. It’s a long, long read, but a good one, connecting the sociological (NOT socioeconomic) thread from Duke to Trump. I make that careful stipulation in noting that, contra the Adolph Reed types, this is an issue where racism is the ultimate driver, with little of the element of class issues. 

So, at bottom line, there is an element of hypocrisy for the Religious Right. The hypocrisy is in a largely false image, not in going against core realities.

In more recent times, this spilled out into the religious affiliation of many private "academies" in the South in the 1950s and 1960s. It also is reflected in how White Citizens Councils gave cover to religious and non-religious alike who didn't want to look as crude as Klansmen. And, before that, the bible was used, not just antebellum to justify slavery, but after that to justify segregation.

And, it's not just Baptists in the South. Remember that Mormons barred blacks from the priesthood until 1978.

#PrayerShaming meet #AtlanticShaming and #hypocrisy shaming

Atlantic Monthly Managing Editor Emma Green decides that, rather than chide GOP presidential candidates for saying "prayers for the families" banal platitudes after the San Bernardino mass shooting (and the Colorado Springs mass shooting, and surely after the next mass shooting to come), she's rather bash Democrats who call for actual action, like, you know ...

Gun control.

Rather than salute their calls for action, when any of them mocks GOP presidential candidates and other elected officials for NOT calling for action along with "prayers for the families," she calls them

"Prayer shamers."

It's the worst piece of dreck I've seen come from that mag for some time, and that's a magazine that has the confusing neoliberal-libertarian-mushy conservative triangulations of Conor Friedersdorf on its pages.

And, it's not from a staff writer, or a freelancer, it's from its managing editor. (Hat tip to Brains and Eggs for alerting me to this particular dreck.)

But, wait, it gets worse.

On her Twitter feed, to support her contention about "prayer shaming," she retweets the like of noted homophobe Rod Dreher:

More on prayer shaming after public shootings from @roddreher https://t.co/KJUQvE6W56

— Emma Green (@emmaogreen) December 3, 2015

Dreher wrote this dreck, starting with mischaracterizing the New York Daily News' cover page reaction to San Bernardino.

First, the cowards part is true, as none of them will stand up to the NRA. That's even though many religiously conservative would be OK with more gun control.

Green even admits that factor, then tries to pretend this is about prayer shaming in general.

Well, if you want to open that can of worms ...

In small towns across this country, with senseless murders, and murder-suicides, people still utter the same platitude: "Prayers for the family."

What? No prayers for "more gun control"? No prayers for "better mental health services" in the case of murder-suicides? No prayers of anguish of "why do you let this happen, god"?

No, we never hear about such prayers.

Nor does Green note other counterexamples, like Jews in the camps saying they lost god because he wasn't there.

Russell Moore, president of the Ethics and Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, bemoans this becoming yet another part of the culture wars. He even bemoans the shallow prayers of politicos. He doesn't mention, though, that they're almost all of the same political party. Nor does he mention that his denomination has contributed heavily to said culture wars.

Meanwhile, Green herself is quite Catholic. She's not neutral on the religiosity in America issue, having in the past tried to massage the rise of the nones.

And, as a 2012 Georgetown grad, The Atlantic hiring a 20something as managing editor shows how fiscally cheap the magazine is, the Peter Principle again at work in the media industry and more.

Meanwhile, whether conservatives praying for better gun control or alleged liberals wanting more action on gun control?

Preznit Kumbaya keeps talking about, and threatening, to do what he can by executive order if Congress won't act. Well, his threats look ever more hollow, even though there's a lot he could actually do by those executive orders.

He could do even more than that. For example, he could have OSHA do slow-walk, white-glove inspections of every guns and ammo manufacturer in the US until their owners tell the wingnuts to do more on gun control.

And, it's not just guns, on the GOP and mindless, heartless, rote "prayers for ... " nonsense.

Take GOP presidential candidates and other elected officials saying "Prayers for the families" when more and more natural natural disasters are exacerbated by climate change.

Are we supposed to not critique their opposition to climate change legislation and treaties? Is that too "prayer shaming"?

So, Emma, with you and your seemingly Peter-Principled appointment, maybe you should note:
1. The particular prayers deserve mockery, especially when uttered by public officials;
2. Democrats aren't prayer shaming; they're hypocrite shaming;
3. This isn't a one-off. Per a tracker, the U.S. is averaging a mass shooting a day this year. And time, after time, after time, all we hear is "prayers for the families" or "thoughts and prayers." And that's not all. When the case involves a white, Religious Right, conservative Christian terrorist, like Robert Lewis Dear last week, those same GOP presidential candidates and their allies deny that these people are exactly who they are.

On that point, it's not just politicos. Despite evidence that Dear has a history of anti-abortion violent thoughts or more, and the "no more baby parts" quote was certainly inspired by the Center for Medical Progress Regress' surreptitious filming of Planned Parenthood, followed by lie-narrating editing of that video, Dreher claims there's no connection between Christians (while ignoring there's the Religious Right, then there's other Christians) and Colorado Springs.

Dreher then goes on to raise a straw man. Many liberals also agree that it's not just gun control. I'd say it's attitudes about guns in general that's a problem. And the lauding of violence in American society, which includes the Fox network, which arguably, even while Fox News sucks up to conservatives, runs the most anti-"values" programming of any of the four major broadcast networks.

So, the real shame is to Emma Green for writing an article with so little nuance. The second real shame is for The Atlantic continuing to slouch to Gomorrah with a hiring like this. Is Ta-Nehisi Coates a "token" of actual liberal good sense or what? (Hope you're getting paid well, as well as getting a good platform, my man.)

Maybe Atlantic is slouching toward the Gomorrah of clickbait with this, too. But, since I use Ghostery to block its cookies, and AdBlock Plus to block its ads, and put a "no follow" on linking to it, clickbait don't work, baby.

And, now that I have learned a few more nuggets about her, Green may actually be a conservative Catholic culture warrior who hasn't revealed that yet. Maybe she even agrees with Dreher's homophobia.

Quoting the Bible against Kim Davis (and the Religious Right in general)

Kim Davis, selective bible-quoting hypocrite

(Update, Sept. 3: U.S. District Judge David L. Bunning has — very rightfully, in my opinion, contra Kentucky same-sex marriage plaintiffs — sent Davis to jail, rather than just fine her, for continuing to remain in contempt of court. He said her organized supporters would simply pay her fines.)

It's actually like shooting fish in a barrel, but, like most such cases, it's with a fish that refuses to admit it's been shot.

Nonetheless, let's get started with the Rowan County, Kentucky clerk who's going one better than George Wallace on segregation and refusing to issue gay or lesbian marriage licenses.

It's called Romans 13. The first two verses say:

Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. 

The governing authorities above Kim Davis in this case are the variety of federal judges that have told her she's wrong, and unconstitutional; ultimately, this is the Supreme Court.

Oh, while we're at it, for good measure, three verses later, Paul reminds the Religious Right to pay its taxes:

Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.

Again, though, you won't see the Religious Right quoting this.

Let's also, with the four-times married Davis, remember Jesus on divorce in Mark 10:

Later, in the house, his followers asked Jesus again about the question of divorce. He answered, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman is guilty of adultery against her. And the woman who divorces her husband and marries another man is also guilty of adultery.”

Update: Contra one more interesting attempt (Google "David Instone-Brewer" plus "divorce" or similar for much more) to interpret Jesus away, no, he didn't appear to be "softening" this. Rather, he was taking at least as hard a line as Shammai in the Shammai vs. Hillel, conservative vs. liberal schools of Torah at roughly his time. I've seen hints this was about Jesus as proto-feminist protecting the rights of women, but, although that would have been a result, that's not clear. And, contra Q's authorial softening, Jesus doesn't make an allowance for desertion, let alone the "burnt food" idea. Therefore, if he was trying to protect women, it was pretty strange protection.

And, an argument from "space available" or "cost of papyrus" is just a fancier version of the old "argument from silence." Please, Mr. I-B.

A multiple adulteress judging people who want to be married. Per the WaPost link, a pastor at another church says those three divorces were before she got "saved."

First, the Revvvvvv. Smith (to riff on Rush Limbaugh and Jesse Jackson) has no idea if Davis thought she was "saved" during the time of any of her previous marriages, or previous divorces, as far as I know.

Second, of course, that's still trying to impose her (and the Revvvvvvv. Smith's) beliefs on a secular situation. And, given that Smith was active in Promise Keepers more than a decade ago, this isn't new ground for him.

Third, I can quote the Bible on THAT, too! Namely, the first two verses of Romans 6. Here you are, Revvvvvv Smith.

What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may abound? By no means! 

After all, if I take the Revvvvv. Smith at his word, Davis ought to fool around with a fifth would-be husband while actually getting impregnated by a sixth. That way, she'd have another chance to be saved and forgiven so that "grace would abound." (That happened in he first marriage, per this site. She got preggers by eventual hubby No. 3, while married to No. 1 and fooling around with eventual No. 2. Speaking of, she had an opportunity to learn about "grace" and "forgiveness" from eventual No. 2, but didn't then, it appears.)

Meanwhile, her legal mouthpieces, per that just-linked site, are trying to make her the Onward Christian Soldiers version of a conscientious objector.

This all said, most religious fundamentalism is selective in its fundamentals and interpretation thereof. Christian fundamentalism is especially so, above all in relation to the Old Testament/Jewish Tanakh.

Plenty of Christian fundamentalists wear mixed cotton/wool suits, or mixed cotton/polyester clothes, in contravention of the "Old Testament." Plenty of others eat pork and shellfish. They usually claim that's part of the "Ceremonial Law," not the "Moral Law," or at least my Lutheran forbearers did.

That ignores, of course, that the Old Testament makes no such separation. And that Jesus, in saying he had come to fulfill the law, made no such separation either. (I never asked any of my professors during my last, "conversion" year of seminary for a proof text about dividing the commandments, the divarim, of the Torah/Pentateuch into "Moral Law," "Ceremonial Law" and "Civic Law," a nice, threefold, "Trinitarian" division. Nor did I cite Jesus' words about "I have come to fulfill the Law" as an indicator that such divisions didn't exist, and didn't matter if they did.)

Speaking of ...

#Cosmos, creationists and Fox

I love it that creationists continue to whine about Cosmos (even as host Neil deGrasse Tyson blew it on Giordano Bruno).

That said, creationists, as part of the Religious Right, getting taken for a ride by Fox, aka Faux, and owner Rupert Murdoch is nothing new; just this round of complaining is.

Hasn't "The Simpsons" been a bastion of anti-authoritarianism for more than a decade? For several years, wasn't "Married with Children" arguably one of the best anti-family arguments you could have, not to mention one of the earliest entrees in Faux's general degrading of commercial network TV with yet more T&A suggestiveness, a bit more lewdness in language, and other things?

And, where was the Religious Right then? They were already mute, for the most part, even before Faux News made their wet dreams come true by slanting news the way they wanted.

So, suck it, creationists. This time, Murdoch's ride to the bank with your money is a bit more blatant, but not at all new.

Besides, creationists, Comedy Central's got your airtime right here.

That said, Fox is also laughing at you Cosmos geeks, rooting for "Team Science" in a knockoff of the original that apparently isn't sure whether children or adults are its primary target (the original was adult-focused), all while Fox, Neil deGrasse Tyson, or both, are laughing to the bank with a boatload of commercials and cheesy animation that's riding your tribalism for all it's worth.

UIL: Religion played no part in Columbus HS track disqualification

The latest Religious Right whine is coming from here in Tejas. It's the claim that the Columbus High School boys track 4x100 relay team, which won its event at its regional meet, was disqualified from advancing to state because of overt religious celebration.

Well, the University Interscholastic League is officially raining on this latest martyrdom parade. From a UIL press release:

An incident involving the disqualification of the Columbus High School 4X100 meter relay team at the Region IV Conference 3A regional track meet occurred on April 27, 2013. The UIL was made aware of this issue on May 2 after media reports of the disqualification began airing on May 1.  Once becoming aware of the incident, the UIL immediately began investigating the matter thoroughly.

Over the course of the investigation, the UIL interviewed several eyewitnesses and reviewed video of the race. Additionally, the UIL spoke to the involved parties.  The UIL has concluded the investigation and has found no evidence to suggest that the disqualification took place as a result of the student-athlete expressing religious beliefs.  The basis for the disqualification was due to the student-athlete behaving disrespectfully, in the opinion of the local meet referee.

Based on the UIL’s investigation, the student athlete raised his hand and gestured forward at the conclusion of the 4x100-meter relay. The meet official approached the student-athlete in an effort to warn him of a possible disqualification should that behavior continue. In the opinion of the official, the student reacted disrespectfully. Based on his reaction, the student-athlete was subsequently disqualified. Any decision to disqualify a student-athlete at any track meet must be upheld by the head meet referee. The meet official and the meet referee conferred, and the disqualification was upheld on-site. At no point during the discussions surrounding the disqualification at the meet was the issue of religious expression raised by any parties.

The UIL’s investigation also revealed that all coaches involved were notified prior to the regional meet that any gestures in violation of the NFHS track and field rule against unsporting behavior would be grounds for disqualification. Coaches were instructed to discuss this with their student-athletes prior to all races. 

If that's not enough for you, both the kid involved and his parents are telling the martyrs' brigade, ever so politely, to put a sock in it:

To assist the UIL in its investigation, the student-athlete’s parents submitted a letter stating that their son’s religious freedoms were not violated. “In looking back at the conclusion of the 4x100 race, we realize that Derrick could have handled the win in a different manner,” KC and Stacey Hayes said in the letter. “It was not our intention to force the issue that our son’s religious freedom was violated. Nor do we feel that way now. After discussing this with our son, we have come to the conclusion that his religious rights were not violated.”

The student-athlete who was disqualified also submitted a letter during the investigation stating: “Although I am very thankful for all God has given me and blessed me with, on Saturday, April 27, 2013 at the Regional Track Meet in Kingsville, TX, my actions upon winning the 4x100 relay were strictly the thrill of victory. With this being said, I do not feel my religious rights or freedoms were violated.”  

Now, let's move on. 

If only we could. Agitators aren't going to let go of this one, I have no doubt. I'm surprised Tim Tebow hasn't jumped in yet. 

C. Everett Koop, the real man and the wingnut myth-to-be

Getty Images photo via Yahoo

Now that C. Everett Koop, the man who made the Surgeon General's position into a bully pulpit (setting aside Luther Terry and the warnings on cigarette packs in 1964) has died at the age of 96, it's time for taking stock.

Before the wingnuts start inventing stock, like they did with St. Ronald of Reagan.

I can already tell you, he's going to be proclaimed as an anti-abortion zealot.

But the truth, even if we restrict ourselves to abortion, is more nuanced.

Koop never lessened his personal opposition to abortion. But, while Surgeon General, he refused to sign off on bullshit pseudomedical "research" that claimed abortion damaged many women's mental health. If the greater wingnuttery of claiming abortion caused cancer had been brought up 25 years ago, Koop would have kicked those people out of his office, I think.

And, setting aside whatever personal thoughts he had about gay sexuality, or extramarital sexuality in general, he stressed the use of condoms rather than abstinence in fighting the spread of AIDS.

Koop personally opposed homosexuality and believed sex should be saved for marriage. But he insisted that Americans, especially young people, must not die because they were deprived of explicit information about how the HIV virus was transmitted.

Again, this is as opposed to abstinence-only sex education that Rick Perry and other wingnuts say they "know" works, without any evidence, without any, per Koop, explicit information.
Hell, he even supported advertising condoms on TV!

Also, per his New York Times obit, he tried to get both Reagan and Poppy Bush to do more about getting more people to have health care, even if he later opposed Obamacare.

In short, Koop was a man of integrity. And, as a sidebar, this is another reason why Gnu Atheists should be a bit slower about blanket "bashing" of people of religion.

Are we seeing the end of a Fourth Great Awakening?

Per discussion with friends on Facebook, over the book "The Rocks Don't Lie," I'd say the answer is yes. (Partial review of the book below, followed by a jump into discussion.)



The Rocks Don't Lie: A Geologist Investigates Noah's Flood by David R. Montgomery

My rating: 4 of 5 stars

A genial refutation of young-earth creationism

Montgomery generally keeps this story about how the earth's geology refutes any version of a literal Noahic flood light on detailed scientific language. And, it is written as a story.

He takes the reader to various geological formations in the world thatr have been key to the development of geology as a science, while narrating how key figures from geology's history have studied and analyzed such formations. At the same time, he narrates the history of Christian theological thought on literal vs non-literal biblical interpretation in general, and specifically on the Noahic flood. He intertwines the two in discussing how different strands of Christian thought reacted to these scientific findings.

Basically, by the end of the 19th century, a literal or semi-literal young-earth creationism (if not 10,000 years or less, certainly no more than 100,000 years) had fallen out of favor with the great majority of theologians in most of the Western world.

With the exception of the United States.

Montgomery puts YEC developments in the historic context of:
1. Anti-evolutionism and the Scopes trial of the 1920s and
2. Anti-communism and the Cold War, etc., of the late 1940s and beyond.

As talk of "culture wars" continues, and as Montgomery stretches YEC roots back to the Second Great Awakening, this is good to remember.

And now, to tie this to a "Fourth Great Awakening."

First, unlike the First Great Awakening. the Second Great Awakening, or the Third Great Awakening, this "Fourth Great Awakening" has a much more political component.

To explain, for people not very familiar with the history of Christianity in America:

The First Great Awakening was Jonathan Edwards, and others, attempting to revitalize the Puritan Calivinist beliefs of New England and the Middle Atlantic colonies in the first half of the 1700s. It was also was intertwined with the growth of Methodism and Baptist denominations. The Second started to battle deism and skepticism, and at its tail end, was connected to the start of sects such as Mormonism and Seventh-Day Adventism. The Third was connected with the late 19th century Social Gospel and reform movements such as the temperance issue.

The First one may have had some connection to the American Revolution; Wiki's entry claims that, but I think it overstates the case. The Second spawned the short-lived Anti-Masonic Party, but was not directly connected to abolitionism. The Third  (I partially accept there was one, but definite more narrowly in time than Wiki) had a bit of a political angle, more in the "Social Gospel" of mainline Protestantism, though, than in the rising Holiness Movement. was a bit more political, but not extremely so.

I also accept the idea of a Fourth Great Awakening, but while I disagree with Wiki that its timeframe for the Third is too long, I think it's too short for the Fourth.

The Fourth relates to the rise of literalism in biblical interpretation and much more. It's definitely the most anti-intellectual of the Great Awakenings.

Evidence for one starting includes that the National Council of Churches "peaked" in the late 50s/early 60s, mainline Protestantism had clergy/laity separating more at that time, and fundamentalism and conservative evangelicalism grew rapidly.

That said, previous "Great Awakenings" shot their Roman candle in 35-45 years, really. (Which is part of why I think Wiki is too long on the Third and too short on the Fourth.)  So ... W's two elections aside, is the Third Awakening pretty much dying? And, does that in part explain some of the vitriol? Angry death spasms?

We're at about the right time frame. Each previous Great Awakening died differently.

The First petered out, as much as anything. The fervor of the Second got a nurture in sects such as Mormonism, Adventism, etc., that got new life in the Third, which also faced American industrialization.

The Fourth had a start, if you will, and was almost stillborn, in the Scopes trial. Not all conservative Christians were young-earth creationists, and so, while they may not have been fully reconciled to Darwinian ideas about evolution, many probably could have halfway accepted a "tamer" version of evolution if combined with old-earth creationism.

But, the Second Red Scare ( the first being after World War I) changed everything. But not by itself. The Civil Rights Movement added a "second stage" to this rocket. (Although black megachurches have grown recently, the Fourth Great Awakening is much more a white Christian phenomenon.)

Because the Fourth Great Awakening tied with this, not just the Second Red Square, it naturally became more political. Non-Catholic parochial schools, battles over school prayer, tax exemptions and more, as well as political appeals, both open and coded, by both Democrats and Republicans, became part of this.

But, now, has it shot its bolt?

It may have. One sign? Per a new Wall Street Journal poll, almost 70 percent of Americans want to keep Roe v. Wade. Gay relationships, if not gay marriage, are also getting more support among centrist Americans.

That said, as I noted, the First Great Awakening pretty much faded out. The Second created the "burned over district," but eventually died down smoothly enough. The Third definitely faded out, after the passage of Prohibition and the fading of political Progressivism.

I don't think the Fourth will end the same way. To riff on T.S. Eliot, if it doesn't end with a bang instead of a whimper, its demise will be more emotionally violent. And, because it's more political, that emotionally violent denouement, which I believe we're seeing now, will have political fallout which none of us can probably fully see at this time.

That depends in part on how much the Democratic party tries to stay progressive on social issues while remaining conservative on financial ones, and even more if some conservative Christian laity become disgusted with a Republican party that panders even more to the rich.

Could we see the Constitution party, which is the closest thing the US has to a Religious Right party, move more fully that way?

It wouldn't surprise me. If a Ron Paul type were to temper his financial libertarianism with a heavier dollop of William Jennings Bryan type populism, that person could indeed lead such a "movement."

If we had parliamentary government, this would be a no-brainer. That said, countries like France, which has a modified presidential-parliamentary hybrid, but more power with the president than the leader of parliament, have multiparty government. The problem here in the US is, of course, the Electoral College system. One could have a spectrum of parties in Congress without it, and lesser parties focusing on Congressional elections.

Monday debate preview — stand by for WAR!

Stand by for WAR!
Wikipedia photo

Remember the 2004 “foreign policy” presidential debate, where John Kerry tried his hardest to prove that, if elected, he would kill more Iraqi “terrorists” than George W. Bush? How about the 2008 “foreign policy” presidential debate, where Barack Obama rhetorically moved heaven and earth to say he would kill more Afghan “terrorists” than John McCain?

Well, to riff on Paul Harvey’s old signature phrase, stand by for WAR! Or warmongering, at least.

Monday, we’ll get to see this year’s “foreign policy” warmongering debate. And, yes it will be just that.

First, Mitt Romney has shown that foreign policy is his weak suit, and would be even if he were standing in Israel with Sheldon Adelson whispering in his ear.

Second, speaking of that, he’s shown that he’s more tea party-wingnut on social policy than on domestic issues. Since Mormons don’t believe in the rapture, and more conservative rich Jews would give him money even if he were only a semi-wingnut, I honestly don’t know where this one comes from. But, it’s there.

The “first” showed up horribly for Romney in the town hall debate, on Libya, even though the mainstream media and Obamiacs both have overplayed it somewhat, in my opinion. That said, Romney does like to look macho, so look for him to talk about killing al-Qaeda in Africa, Hamas (and even the Palestinian Authority, perhaps) in Israel and the nation of Palestine, for him to kill any Taliban in sight in either Afghanistan or Pakistan (showing his willingness to flirt with World War III), to kill any Iranian he can, and to kill any Syrian he can.

He’d offer to kill Chinese, too, but they’re too valuable as serf labor for factories in Bain Capital takeover companies.

Anyway, the last two debate cycles have shown that it’s the candidate who is either a challenger (2004) or perceived as inexperienced (2008) who feels the need to sound like a Strangelovean Gen. JackD. Ripper protecting American vital bodily fluids.

To the degree I remember 2000, I think Bush used some of the same tough-guy angle on foreign policy.

But, let’s not forget that Obama hasn’t been all talk since his election.

Remember Anwar al-Awlaki? An American citizen killed without trial by an Obama drone.

And, if that’s not enough to convince you that Dear Leader will fight fire with fire, there’s something else. It seems like we’re now backtracking on pulling out all of our troops from Afghanistan.

The fact that Team Obama wants to keep25,000 there is also yet another reason to move past bipartisan warmongering and vote Green.

And, let’s not forget that civil liberties get shot at in the “War on Terror,” too.

How many “sting operations” like the one that resulted in an arrest earlier of an alleged terrorist have also bent and folded civil liberties?

Meanwhile, per what Martha Raddatz got wrong at the Veep debate, let’s not forget that this “foreign policy” debate (speaking of Sheldon Adelson) will definitely, on Romney’s part, be an attempt to dog-whistle and fuse Israeli foreign policy and US foreign policy at the hip.

Question is … how weakly will Obama respond? Especially if Romney blatantly goes into warp drive on his pandering and publicly calls for Jerusalem to be the capital of Israel? (No, it wouldn’t surprise me.)

Meanwhile, free trade vs. fair trade as a foreign policy issue will get ignored.

So too, per that link about Raddatz, will be:

• Chinese cyberwar

• The possibility of Pakistan becoming a failed state

• The possibility of Mexico becoming a failed state

• Canada, tar sands and Keystone XL won’t get ignored, per se, just the facts about it vs. “energy independence” myths.

#Tiananmen survivor: Biography cum propaganda

A Heart for Freedom: The Remarkable Journey of a Young Dissident, Her Daring Escape, and Her Quest to Free China's Daughters by Chai Ling

My rating: 2 of 5 stars



The first 4/5 of the book was great, but the last 1/5 clearly jumped the shark.

I have no problem with Chai talking about specific spinoffs of her conversion to Christianity, since that's part of her biography. I'm not so OK with her equating forced abortions for gender in China with all abortions, for serious medical issues even, in the U.S. But, that's a belief that's part of her conservative evangelical conversion. So, it's not the shark-jumping, yet.

What is?

Her belief that China must become a "Jesus fearing" nation before democracy can take root. Tosh. Piddle. Or bullshit. And, one empirically refuted.

A very Chinese, very democratic (and capitalist), prosperous, QUITE non-Christian Taiwan sits across the Straits of Formosa from China.

In addition:
1. A very democratic, very prosperous, majority non-Christian South Korea almost borders China.
2. A very democratic, very prosperous, almost totally non-Christian Japan sits across the Sea of Japan.
3. A semi-democratic, very non-Christian, growingly prosperous Thailand is also in Southeast Asia.

If that's not enough to refute Chai Ling:
A (messily) democratic, not-yet-prosperous, very much non-Christian India has been democratic since its independence.

So, the shark was jumped there.

Related to that, we hear zero, zip, bupkis about what her dad, sister and brother think about her conversion.

I also noticed, by this point, that post-exile, there's almost no print given to fellow Tianamen student leaders who were successful in some way post-exile, rather than those who made peace with Beijing or else couldn't hack it abroad. And, there are other such people.

Result? It's hard not to think of this as half propaganda, half biography. And, having just written that, my review goes down another star. If we had half stars, I'd do 2.5, but I can't give it a full three.



View all my reviews