Today, GOProud, the only national organization representing gay conservatives and their allies, announced that conservative author Ann Coulter is headlining their first annual Homocon – a party to celebrate gay conservatives. “The gay left has done their best to take all the fun out of politics, with their endless list of boycotts and protests. Homocon is going to be our annual effort to counter the ‘no fun police’ on the left,” said Christopher Barron, Chairman of the Board of GOProud. “I can’t think of any conservative more fun to headline our inaugural party then the self-professed ‘right-wing Judy Garland’ – Ann Coulter.”

Right-wing Judy Garland? … yeah, anyway, Coulter seems to be on board with this, and it’s cost her. Most notably, WorldNetDaily dropped her from the lineup of speakers for one of their upcoming conferences. According to Joseph Farah, the head of WND:

“Ultimately, as a matter of principle, it would not make sense for us to have Ann speak to a conference about ‘taking America back’ when she clearly does not recognize that the ideals to be espoused there simply do not include the radical and very ‘unconservative’ agenda represented by GOProud. The drift of the conservative movement to a brand of materialistic libertarianism is one of the main reasons we planned this conference from the beginning.

Coulter responded – actually quite reasonably – that she’s a paid speaker and that speaking before a group does not automatically equal an endorsement. That doesn’t seem to have settled the issue, because she’s begun lashing out at Farah. In a recent episode of Fox News’ Red Eye, she called Farah and his crew “fake Christians who are trying to get publicity.” She’d know, I suppose.

Candace Chellew-Hodge over at Religion Dispatches suggests that some conservatives like Coulter and – surprisingly – Glenn Beck are moving towards toleration of homosexuals. These would be the new wave of conservatism that has realized that the gay rights battle is lost. I’m skeptical. Frankly, if conservatives begin repositioning themselves, I suspect it’s because they believe that the current wave of anti-Islamic feeling is a more successful wedge issue than gay rights.

Y’know, ol’ Mark knows an awful lot about how Satan operates. Just sayin’.

What irritates me most about this clip is that I could really agree with Driscoll’s opposition to Twilight and some of the other works. I’m sick of vampires, zombies and werewolves right now, so that’s a start. But Driscoll could very reasonably talk about the creepy sexism in Twilight and I’d be right there with him. I would probably agree with his opposition to the Mormon themes in the works, or at least nod along with him.

He could have a reasonable discussion about this, but instead he jumps straight to Satan, demons, witchcraft and so forth. I guess that’s easier that literary criticism.

I’m sure that right now, Americans are looking at the Catholic churches being shut down because all the money is going into pedophilia lawsuits and thinking, “This is the organization I want running my country. What was the last big confessional Catholic country? Franco’s Spain? Yeah, gimme more of that.”

I know that the upper ranks of the Catholic hierarchy have had problems with Democracy for a couple of centuries now. We could talk about Pope Leo XIII and the error of “Americanism”, and we could talk about the tensions between John Coutney Murray and Alfredo Ottaviani.

We could also talk about Pope Pius IX and his Syllabus of Errors, which was a heavy broadside against the separation of Church and State, freedom of religion and democracy. But let’s be fair: Pope Pius IX was -- and I say this with all due respect -- batshit crazy. This was the man who had Edgardo Mortara kidnapped. He was not on speaking terms with sanity.

But I’ve always thought that these arguments were largely confined to the hierarchy and the academics. My impression had always been that the rank-and-file Catholic priests and the laity just ignored it. After Vatican II, I figured no one outside the ivory towers in Rome would be talking about it.

I know we’ve got a lot of lapsed Catholics in the audience. Is this sort of argument common?

[Edit: The original video was taken down recently. I suspect it was the post from PZ that did it. Thanks to richarddawkins.net for the mirror.]

Thou Shalt Not Lie

David Barton is reclaiming America for the Lord. He is tirelessly educating Americans about their historical roots and beloved constitution. He talks about the secular invasion in America, and he’s taking it back and giving it to God.

We’ve heard about one nation under god so often that we believe it. We know that in the beginning, God wrested America from the pagan hands of the devil’s children and gave it to his righteous servants.

But this is wishful thinking. Barton and his kind are Christian Revisionists, revising and denying history and spreading lies to suit an ideological agenda.

“The notion that America was founded as a Christian nation is a central animating element…of the Christian Right…The idea that America’s supposed Christian identity has somehow been wrongly taken, and must somehow be restored, permeates the psychology and vision of the entire movement,” writes Frederick Clarkson in The Public Eye.

The End Justifies the Means

Pullquote: “What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church… a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie. Such lies would not be against God, he would accept them.”
Martin Luther

Christian Reconstructionists don’t just re-construct a nation for God- they reconstruct facts. And history revisionism is a huge part of the movement. Forget that the Old Testament law that they aspire to return to forbids false witness. Lying is a standard modus operandi for so many “Christian Nationalists.” The end justifies the means.

We don’t have room for all details- suffice it to say that the word “God” was not in the Constitution, and the founding fathers, Christian or not, were adamant about separation of church and state. “We’ve seen how religious beliefs (and other ideologies) inspire people to view others as subhuman, deviant, and deserving of whatever happens to them, including death. It is the stuff of persecution, pogroms, and warfare. The framers of the U.S. Constitution struggled with how to inoculate the new nation against these ills…” wrote Clarkson.

And “In God we Trust” did not become the official motto until 1956.

Enter Christian Nationalist David Barton, a major player in the Texas Republican Party, and founder of WallBuilders, a Dominionist group hell bent on “restoring” theocracy. Time (2005) named him among the 25 most influential evangelists. He is on the advisory committee for National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools, and for Providence Foundation, “training and networking leaders to transform nations.” Reconstuctionist groups like Providence ultimately aim to “reinstate” Old Testament law, including the stoning of homosexuals, witches, and disobedient children.

Barton lectures and ministers all over the Christian and mainstream media, given a voice by bigwig networks of all faith stripes, spreading his fiction gospel about the roots of the nation. He insists in The Myth of Separation that only Christians should hold office!

His flock won’t balk at his extremist views- or his falsehoods. Goaded by “authority” figures like James Dobson, the late D. James Kennedy, and Glenn Beck, they praise Barton for holding up the Constitution. His teachings inform politicians, too. Never mind that Barton has lectured alongside holocaust deniers for white power “Christian Identity” groups like Scriptures for America. Barton claims he didn’t know, a weak protest for someone so politically astute.

Revising History

Barton’s research in his speeches and books is convincing- how can all those facts be wrong? With so many quotes and references to so many documents, he makes a strong case even if we don’t like that case, no?

No. History scholars refute Barton’s teachings. He misquotes past presidents, and twists their ideas. He deliberately leaves out quotes and distorts contexts.

He also makes it up as he goes along.

Barton has been thoroughly debunked. Rob Boston writes frequently on this, showing us that scholars have questioned quotes pumped by Barton and attributed to the founders. Not only did they find no sources for many facts and quotes, but Barton himself admitted some were bogus!

He’s an admitted liar. His education is from Oral Roberts University, ahem. But now he reviews material for curriculum textbooks. And his words are as good as God to homeschoolers. Say what?

AFTER all of his lies became common knowledge, Barton’s influence and popularity increased. Go figure.

In his book, “The Courage to Be Protestant,” David Wells writes:”The born-again, marketing church has calculated that unless it makes deep, serious cultural adaptations, it will go out of business, especially with the younger generations. What it has not considered carefully enough is that it may well be putting itself out of business with God.”

I find this attitude odd.

There’s a line – I believe it’s from Rob Bell – that every 500 years the church has shaken itself. That’s simplistic; in truth, there have been any number of occasions in which the church has nearly shaken itself to pieces. Several of those periods came within the centuries after the conversion of Constantine, like the Arian crisis, the expulsion of the Nestorians or the long-running conflict with the monophysites.

At each point, part of Christianity has branched off and part remained tied to the Empire. Most modern Christians are descended from one branch. But is it the right branch? Is this the branch that is right by God?

I don’t know of too many evangelical Christians who mull over the arguments of the Donatists or the Arians. They accept that the branch they were born into was rightly guided – ironically, by the same church fathers, bishops and emperors that evangelicals now sneer at for being “too Catholic.” They accept the canon as it was defined by these men and these traditions that come down through the councils.

I suppose the only thing you can do is to have faith that you’re sitting on the right branch because God guided things. But if God was guiding things then, why not now?

I sometimes hear Evangelicals declaring that Satan is behind this or that church movement. But why would Satan waste his time dealing with some white upper-middle class hipster douchebags who are probably going to have enough trouble explaining to St. Peter why they lived high on the hog while half of the planet starved?

No, if Satan’s got the brains of a doorknob, he’s going back in time and whispering in the ear of Athanasius and convincing him that the Son is co-eternal with the Father. In one swoop he’d have driven a wedge between Christians and Jews and (later) Muslims, as well as muddying the waters of monotheism.

Archaeologists in Bulgaria claim they have found remains of John the Baptist while excavating the site of a 5th century monastery on the Black Sea island of Sveti Ivan.

A reliquary – a container for holy relics – discovered last week under the monastery’s basilica was opened on Sunday and found to contain bone fragments of a skull, a hand and a tooth, Bulgaria’s official news agency BTA reported.

Excavation leader Kazimir Popkonstantinov lifted the reliquary’s lid in a ceremony in the coastal town of Sozopol attended by dignitaries including the Bishop of Sliven, Yoanikii, and Bozhidar Dimitrov, a government minister and director of Bulgaria’s National History Museum, BTA said.

The name of the island translates to “Saint John,” which would probably considered the first clue. Popkonstantinov argues that the bones are authentically John the Baptist because the reliquary is inscribed with the date of June 24 – the date that the Orthodox Church celebrates as John’s birthday.

This is a very slim twig to hang the identity of the bones on, particularly since the reliquary itself dates to the fifth century. I suspect that Popkonstantinov knows that, and that’s why we’re getting press conferences ahead of the facts rather than journal articles afterwards.

Dr. Christopher Rollston, a historian qualified to talk about the ancient near east, has some suggestions of what evidence would be necessary for Popkonstantinov to make his case:

1. A reliable ancient tradition, preferably from the late(r) 1st century or very early 2nd century CE, stating that the bones of John the Baptist had been moved to an island in the Black Sea; 2. An inscription on the burial box that stated something like “The bones of John the Baptist” (i.e., name and title…something such as ”John” would not be sufficient); 3. A palaeographic date for the inscription itself that was late 1st century or very early 2nd century (after all, arguably no one in later centuries would be able to locate precisely the burial site of John the Baptist in Palestine and it may be that even in the late 1st century no one would have been able to have done so!). (4) Carbon 14 dating of the bones that yielded a 1st century CE date.

They are shouting at us to collectively awaken to the dangers of revering texts and doctrines on no sounder basis than tradition and authority. Because the New Atheists put their faith, their confidence, in an evidentially formed and continuously tested view of the world, these critics of religion are well positioned to see what’s real and what’s important today. It is thus time for religious people to listen to the New Atheists—and to listen as if they were speaking with God’s voice, because in my view they are!

What follows – the bulk of his sermon – is what that proper relationship is. It’s a pretty good run-down of one type of Liberal Christian theology, with it’s base in Rudolf Bultman. Dowd is what John Shelby Spong used to call a “non-theist,” a person who feels that God is not a person. What exactly this God thing happens to be is probably beyond us, but at least we can experience God in some way and cultivate that experience.

For myself, I don’t see how we can listen to what science tell us about the human mind – which Dowd seems to want us to do – and still trust that these spiritual experience are telling us something true about the universe. Having grown up in a family with more than its fair share of mental illnesses, I’m leery of assuming that any powerful experience is necessarily true or derived from a source outside my own brain chemistry.

Julie Ingersoll over at Religion Dispatches catches the reaction to Dowd from Dr. Al Mohler- sort of the go-to fundamentalist these days. Mohler stats that Dowd’s religion is not really Christianity, but an illustration “theological and biblical costs of embracing the evolutionary worldview.”

Mohler has the wrong end of the stick and he should know better.. The roots of Liberal theology predate Darwin. Mohler’s Fundamentalist Christianity arose largely as a reaction to Strauss, Schleiermacher and the rest of the Liberal theologians and their Higher Criticism.

Now, this was in the bible belt. Most folks know that the bible is probably the most printed book in the west, perhaps the world. No one really thinks about what happens to all those bibles. Even the Gideons don’t have that many hotel rooms to fill.

As it happens, quite a number of those bibles wind up being donated to library book sales. As in, boxes and boxes of them. Most of them cheap, poor quality bibles of dubious translations: “The Bible Even You can Read,” or “The Bible in Plain English Just Like Jesus Spoke!”

What to do with all these bibles? No one would buy them. Everyone already had a couple of copies at home, and how many do you need? That’s why everyone was donating them to us.

This was back in the days before recycling came to little towns in the south. So my first job in the library field was to play look-out while the librarian heaved arm-loads of bibles into the dumpster. There I was, a nervous sixteen year old watching for anybody to come around the corner while a small southern lady tossed grocery bags full of God’s word into the trash. Also, lots of Harlequin romance novels, but those wouldn’t have gotten us into trouble if we’d been caught.

Perhaps I should have taken this as a sign of things to come.

The Dove World Outreach Center says it is hosting the event to remember 9/11 victims and take a stand against Islam. With promotions on its website and Facebook page, it invites Christians to burn the Muslim holy book at the church from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m.

“We believe that Islam is of the devil, that it’s causing billions of people to go to hell, it is a deceptive religion, it is a violent religion and that is proven many, many times,” Pastor Terry Jones told CNN’s Rick Sanchez earlier this week.

Jones wrote a book titled “Islam is of the Devil,” and the church sells coffee mugs and shirts featuring the phrase.

Imagine if a Muslim church in FL was hosting a “International Bible Burning” event. They’d flip. But because it’s a religion other than theirs, they think it’s great.

What does such an event accomplish? It does not change anyone’s mind, it only fuels anger and violence.

I challenge any church in America to match the spiritual maturity, godliness & commitment of any 500 members of Saddleback

That didn’t sit well with anyone outside of 500 Saddleback members. Here are some reactions from irate Christians:

“Christianity is not about who’s better than who–NONE ARE GOOD!! all deserve the wrath of God in hell” (src)

“dude this is the most immature thing I’ve ever heard from someone I respect so much. What is this, jr high” (src)

“Churches everywhere are waiting for an apology from @RickWarren.” (src)

“Rick either needs to get someone to filter his tweets or he needs to fire the person who’s doing his tweeting” (src)

“Besides the sheer arrogance of it all, one thing which struck out the most was the utter man-centeredness of this tweet.” (src)

“I would delete the challenge. Sounds too much like “pride.” Media will run with it brother.” (src)

And then there’s the pious reproach:

It’s wonderful that you are doing such good work, but really, is it necessary to toot your own horn in this manner. With all due respect, I’m not sure that’s how it’s supposed to be done.

“Be careful not to do your ‘acts of righteousness’ before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. “So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.~Matthew 6:1-4

The “church” seems to be so preoccupied with numbers and power and being THE church that will minister to all sinners that it sometimes forgets why it ministers and for whom. You have done so much; don’t lose sight of it all by trying to use the stats to impress others. I am no one of consequence, and I prefer it that way when it comes to what I do for God and in His name.

I remember writing those kind of concern emails. Concerned Dan was concerned, oh yes he was, and he told others with lots of bible verses and admonitions to “the truth.”

What do you think of Warren’s tweet? Personally I find the whole thing rather amusing.

Update 8:43pm: Matthew Paul Turner weighs in:

Yes! It’s like Church Olympics. Churches already love waving flags, so an Olympic competition will be a natural. [...]

Ricky’s tweet didn’t sit too well with the Christians of Twitterland. They became restless. Some were sad. Some welcomed the challenge. Some cried “pride”! Some declared EGO! Some demanded an apology!! [...]

But seriously, people twucified poor Rick. [...]

I’m hoping he either untweets his tweet or tweets a supporting tweet to help us understand his random self-glorifying 140 characters…

The world waits.

Haha. Not really. But a lot of Christians are waiting.

Twucified?! Nice.

Update 8:48pm: The offending tweet has been removed. Now it’s time for the PR department to patch things up… Will they say the account was hacked? That Warren had too much blood of Jesus to drink? That he’s just a prideful douche who doesn’t want gays to get married? We shall see.

Update 8/12: Instead of apologizing, Rick Warren has defended himself by saying Paul said something similar in the Bible:

Paul COMPARED the Macedonia church’s commitment to Corinth’s & challenged them to MATCH it 2 Cor. 8:1-8. Wise teaching tool

BIBLICAL leaders use themselves as examples to challenge others. Paul often did.See David’s courageous model! 1Chron 29:2- 5

Rick Warren, the modern-day Apostle Paul and pastor of the Macedonians. Go Rick! Keep digging!

The stories of some of those followers are painful to read. Consider this article from Colorado Springs, which mentions Marie Exley. Exley is unemployed, yet she spent $1,200 on a bench ad that advertises Camping’s prediction. This is bad enough, but people giving money they can’t afford to religious hucksters is nothing new. But this moved the story towards pathos:

Exley has bittersweet feelings about Camping’s prediction.

“There are things I felt I always wanted to do — get married, have a kid, travel more,” she said. “But it’s not about what I want out of life. It’s about what God wants.”

No, Exley, this is not about what God wants. It’s about what Camping is capable of getting you to swallow.

My strategy for these sorts of predictions has always been the same: on May 22, 2011, I intend to be smug and still here. But stories like this one pain me. I just don’t understand the thought process that allows people to buy into this, even while it causes them pain and harm.

The winner, Muhammad Asyraf Mohd Ridzuan, beat out 9 other contestants over the run of the show. According to The Guardian:

… contenders face weekly challenges such as performing the Islamic ritual of cleansing two unclaimed corpses, preaching to young delinquents hauled in after a police raid and counselling unwed pregnant girls at a woman’s shelter.

The Guardian article points out a potential problem with “Imam Muda.” By focusing on the interpersonal skills over the theology of the wannabe clerics, the show “feeds into a public fascination with charismatic clerics, who have not always been good news for Malaysia.”

Which makes me think it would be the perfect show to adapt for the American Fundamentalist audience, since there personal charisma is far more important than theological consistency, sound doctrine or basic sanity.

In fact, since there is a persistent rumor that American mega-churches are having trouble replacing their founders, this would be the perfect time to bring out such a show. The winner could get a gig being Benny Hinn’s understudy.

Qualification tests would include endurance bible thumping, insane exegesis and really, really atrocious hairstyle. The only trouble is what to call it. “American Idol” seems perfectly appropriate, but it’s already taken.