Our doorstep is dirty. Clearly.

And you gotta love the nutjobs defending that Obama is a racist. Sheesh.

(via)

(via)

One would think then that anything to make adoption easier and broaden the pool of the number of people who can provide for children effectively to be a welcome change.

Unfortunately, a family court in Georgia doesn’t see it that way. As covered over at the Volokh Conspiracy, in a March 2010 decision, the court ruled that a late middle aged couple who had been foster parents to an infant girl and decided to adopt her were not suitable to adopt, even after acting as her foster parents for three years. What was the one factor that disqualified them?

They weren’t married.

Interestingly, according to Georgia law, being married is not a requirement for legal adoption. The court, in a rare and flagrant case of conservative judicial activism, decided to ignore the strictures of the law and substitute its own moral judgment, saying: “[the couple were] living in an immoral, meretricious relationship, … and that the adoption and their continued custody is inappropriate.”

Thankfully, a Georgia Appeals Court swiftly reversed the decision. Still, it shows just how far reaching of a hold that religious categories of sexual morality, and specifically a monomaniacal emphasis on marriage as the only appropriate form of sexual relationship, can have even today in the context of a simple legal proceeding. It is remarkable that the hold of those beliefs overpowered consideration for the well-being of the child as well as adherence to the law.

Conservatives are doing with Dr. King what they so frequently do with the Bible: they are proof-texting.

Dr. King still has enormous moral authority in our culture, and some folks want to seize hold of it without having to listen to the whole message. They’d like to remember his “I Have A Dream” speech, but forget that it was delivered during the “March of Washington for Jobs and Freedom.” They want to remember his martyrdom, but forget that it happened while he was supporting sanitation workers who were on strike.

I was going to compare some of Beck’s statements to selections of Dr. King’s speeches, but unfortunately my copy of A Testament of Hope is packed away. Luckily, Ben Dimiero over at MediaMatters has his copy, and he’s done an excellent job of comparing Beck’s favorite themes to Dr. King’s. Consider a few quotes:

Beck: “They’re collapsing the system and replace it with a system of guaranteed annual income for all the workers! Workers of the world unite!” [...]

King: “We must develop a program that will drive the nation to a guaranteed national income.” [...]

Beck: “The thing that I do find about Barack Obama is that — and I think America is starting to catch on to this — this guy really is a Marxist. He believes in the redistribution of wealth. He believes in the global government and everything else.” [...]

King: “[W]e are dealing with issues that cannot be solved without the nation spending billions of dollars — and undergoing a radical redistribution of economic power.” [...]

Notice how much King sounds like Beck’s worst nightmare? Yet this is the man whose mantle Beck is trying to wear? Consider this quote from a speech he gave to his staff in 1966 and tell me how Beck and his crew would react:

“We are now making demands that will cost the nation something. We can’t talk about solving the economic problems of the Negro without talking about billions of dollars. You can’t talk about ending slums without first saying profit must be taken out of slums. You’re really tampering and getting on dangerous ground because you are messing with folk then. You are messing with the captains of industry … Now this means that we are treading in difficult waters, because it really means that we are saying that something is wrong … with capitalism … There must be a better distribution of wealth and maybe America must move toward a Democratic Socialism. ”
(“Frogmore Speech”, quoted in I May Not Get There With You, pp. 87-88)

It’s uncomfortable to watch him make a fool of himself.

(via)

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.

When the Bible says homosexuals should be “put to death; their blood shall be upon them,” the blood is really AIDS. Or so says Jeremy Walters, Republican legislative hopeful, in a series of posts on his Facebook.

Waters is running in House District 67 against state Rep. Kevin McCarthy, D-Des Moines, the second highest ranking Democrat in the Iowa House.

From Walters’ Facebook:

“The Holy Bible says if your ‘GAY’ homosexual they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. This tells me a lot so should we kill them NO. They Need to ask God to forgive them of their sins and mean it turn away from it. They also need to know that when it says that their blood shall be upon them that tells me it is AIDS. That how I feel.”

“homosexual “GAY” is not of God!!!!!!”

He issued an apology, which sounds very heartfelt:

I am not against people having a gay lifestyle, and the statements made on Facebook have been taken the wrong way. The statement regarding gay homosexuality was not meant to be offensive and I deeply appologize.

As far as the quote from Bible; I was replying to someone elses post. It should have been posted as a comment on their page, not my Facebook wall. I appologize for the mistake and if this statement offened anyone. Both postings have been removed and these comments do not pertain to my campaign or the Republican Party of Iowa. My passion is to listen and learn from the people so I can represent them at the statehouse. Everyone makes mistakes, please forgive me.

Yeah, it wasn’t meant to be offensive. We just took it the wrong way. Sure Jeremy.

He’s not against people having a gay lifestyle, he just thinks they offend his God need to repent. Makes complete sense.

If it wants to be forgiven, he should say his remarks were WRONG, not that they were taken wrong. He hasn’t changed his mind, he’s just trying to manage the fallout.

I’m thinking this is just a crazy guy they pulled off the street. Then again, maybe not.

He’s even bribing people on this website:

VOTE FOR ME AND IF I WIN I WILL IMMUNE YOU FROM ALL STATE CRIMES FOR THE REST OF YOU LIFE!

And here’s Basil speaking on gun control:

He likes that location… a lot.

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.

The Stewart & Oliver exchange at the end is one of the best I’ve seen yet.

He’s not trying to be funny, but he is.

(via)