California State Senator Roy Ashburn was arrested for DUI after leaving Faces, a gay nightclub in Sacramento (the state capital of California) . . . while driving a trick — sorry, a “male passenger” — home (or to a place of rendezvous?).

So?

Not only is Ashburn a Republican, he is a divorced (so much for family values) father of four, and has a solid anti-gay voting record. MSN reports that Ashburn has “voted against every gay rights law, including Recognising Out-Of-State Same-Sex Marriages and Expanding Anti-Discrimination Laws”.

The worst part?

Ashburn was driving a state vehicle.

Ashburn commented:

I am deeply sorry for my actions and offer no excuse for my poor judgment. I accept complete responsibility for my conduct and am prepared to accept the consequences for what I did. I am also truly sorry for the impact this incident will have on those who support and trust me – my family, my constituents, my friends, and my colleagues in the Senate.

There are those who say no apology is sincere. If you were truly sorry, they say, you wouldn’t have done what you did.

What do you think? Does that apply here? Is Ashburn only “sorry” because he got nailed?

Related posts:

1. Anti-Gay Lawmaker Roy Ashburn Comes Out Anti-gay Republican California State Senator Roy Ashburn, arrested on suspicion...
2. California Divorce Ban Could Save $4.8 Billion Annually The Institute for American Values estimates that the 2010 California...
3. Anti-Abortion Groups to Use MLK Day to Protest Houston “Abortion Supercenter” On Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, anti-abortion advocates will rally...

The strategic positioning of Israel for U.S. interests in the middle East has its advantages. Although America has maintained relatively good relations with Jordan and Saudi Arabia, among others, Israel is by far America’s most reliable political ally in the region. In an area with shifting alliances and changing regimes, mostly unfriendly to America, the presence of a committed ally has its obvious benefits. The cost/benefit ratio of supporting Israel as that ally may have its critics, but the stakes are high, the options limited, and the alternatives lack the security of the current, lasting friendship.(2)

So, America has an ally in the Middle East that it gives support to, and that ally is Israel. What’s the big deal? Israel is a strong ally, both in the region as well as in the United Nations, with a similar political system, and one of the most powerful military’s in the world. What’s not to like? What’s the problem?

From Fact to Fantasy

From the aspect of military and economic relations and interdependence, there is nothing particularly unusual about such a relationship. Not everything about this type of relationship is always good, but it is perfectly rational and reasonable to foster such an agreement between two nations.

This is not to say that such a relationship is not possible, and should not be pursued, with other nations in the area, including the Palestinians. Nor is this to say that the relationship with Israel is to the exclusion of all other existing and possible relationships in the region; this is simply to say that there is nothing inherently wrong with such a relationship between the United States and Israel, or any two countries, for that matter.

Despite the relatively secure character of American/Israeli relations, international politics are rife with unexpected trauma. The tenuous nature of international relations is further, and unduly, stressed when decisions are made for reasons other than rational geopolitical or economic motives. Trade agreements, treaties, resources, alliances, protectorates and military cooperation may all be substantive considerations of reasonable and rational international relations. While religious beliefs and superstitions are implementation concerns and considerations, they are not credible, reliable, or desirable as a basis for policy, domestic or foreign. To base concrete decisions on fanciful notions is less than responsible and more than dangerous.

The Delusional Dilettante

During her meteoric rise to the world political stage, Sarah Palin made a point of consulting with Billy Graham regarding foreign policy with Israel, Iran and Iraq(3). Her questions were related to Biblical ‘End-Times’ prophecy and how foreign policy should be designed and implemented accordingly. She spent time with Mr. Graham accepting both his prayers and advice. This crash course on how to manage the end of the world also proved to be a valuable photo-op and chance for Mrs. Palin to further connect to her right-wing conservative Christian base.

In an interview with Barbara Walters, Mrs. Palin shared her concern over President Obama’s policy against Jewish settlement expansion. Her objections were based on her belief that many more Jews were going to be relocating to Jerusalem in the weeks and months ahead(4)(5). According to the Bible, Armageddon will not happen until the Jews have full control over Jerusalem, and Jesus won’t be coming back until we get that whole ‘Armageddon-war-to-end-all-wars’ thing out of the way. So, in Sarah Palin’s conservative Christian reasoning: We must support Israel, at all cost. We must help the Jews expand Israel and control the region so that Jesus can come back and either kill them or convert them to Christianity. According to the Christians, this is what happens after Armageddon. Those Jews that are not killed when Jesus returns are converted to Christianity. Considering this, the very vocal, pro-Israel, right-wing conservative Christian agenda does not seem very pro-Israeli at all.

The Jews/Israelis don’t care about the motivations of the Christian evangelicals. They don’t believe in the prophecies of Revelations in the New Testament. If a bunch of American Right-Wing Christian Conservatives want to keep sending them money and giving them a favored status, fine, let them. If conservative Christian administrations in America turn a blind eye to, or perhaps even encourage, expansionism in the area and the discrimination and oppression of Palestinians or Israeli Arabs, fine, bonus. They don’t care any more than I would if someone wanted to give me money and protect my interests because their interpretation of a religious myth, and the desires of an imaginary being, directed them to do so. Israel is doing the pragmatic thing and I would be surprised, perhaps even disappointed, to find they did not exploit it completely.

This week, it was announced that Sarah Palin, reportedly on advice from Jeb Bush and Bill O’Reilly, will be working diligently to enhance her foreign policy knowledge (7). In addition to her ongoing religious counseling on these matters, Sarah will further her education by teaming up with the poster boy for American Nationalistic Bible-Based Fundamentalism, Glenn Beck, in a series of live stage events to compliment the radio shows and television campaigns waged through Fox cable news(8). Beck, an avowed Mormon, right down to his magic underwear, makes no apologies regarding his belief that we are in the end times, and shares Palin’s vehement assertion that America must turn to God, become a Christian Nation, and live according to Biblical direction. Other than the ‘Constitution be damned’ nature of this ridiculous demand, the foreign and domestic policy implications are more than just potentially disastrous.

A History of Holy Hogwash

Just in case you’re feeling comfortable that the White House is safe from Palin’s Fundamentalist ravings, think again. These religious views are shared by several other politicians including Ronald Reagan and both Presidents Bush, H.W., and W., and have undoubtedly contributed to the abysmal state of U.S. relations in the area. As an example, in 2003, George W. told French President Jacques Chirac that he had to invade Iraq because of Biblical Prophecy(6). He stated that he saw the work of ‘Gog and Magog’, demonic forces referred to in Biblical text, in the middle East, and that they were a threat to Israel, God’s chosen people.

Yes folks, this was the President of the United States giving his reasons for waging an illegal and bloody war. As ridiculous as this sounds, and in fact is, America’s past President is not alone. In America, a country beset with a near majority of evangelical Christians that believe in Creationism and the second coming of Jesus, there is no shortage of people willing to direct the foreign policy and military strength of the most powerful Nation on the planet towards Armageddon. The seemingly indefatigable and incomprehensible belief by Christians, for the past 2000 years, is that the world as we know it is going to end, soon, and Jesus is going to come back and set everything straight. Aside from the unconscionable abdication of personal responsibility this represents, their delusion has the potential to create a self-fulfilling prophecy.

If you give the means to end the world soon to a group of Fundamentalists who believe that it is God’s plan that the world end soon, they will most likely end the world soon. When you have these Fundamentalists, both Christian and Islamic, drawing lines in the sand, literally, you’re tempting the possibility of a world of hurt, literally.

If It’s Going to be Used It Must be Proved

Aside from the issue of foreign policy with Israel, Christian Fundamentalists have insinuated the Bible, as an authoritative source, into almost every aspect of public and governmental discourse. An obtuse document, widely open to a variety of interpretations, has been allowed the status of super-governmental dictate without even the most basic vetting process. This is an error that Americans must correct. The Scopes trial was only a start. If the Bible is going to be used as a basis for legal, policy, or legislative decisions, it must be subjected to, and pass, the same sort of legal litmus test as any other basis for such decisions.

American politicians regularly cite the Christian Bible, and its accompanying doctrine and dogma, as their reason for, or against, policy and legislation. It is a constant refrain in a myriad of debates including, but certainly not limited to, abortion, climate change, education, health care, foreign policy and gay rights. Any other document or text used in such a manner is subject to the investigation, discovery and proof of its credibility, before being allowed the power of such monumental impact. Why is this not the case with the Christian Bible and the decisions that are based on its text?

Christians accept the Bible and its teachings out of faith. Faith is a personal choice. Faith cannot be given to, nor imposed on, another. Non-Christians cannot be required to have faith in the mythology and theology of Christianity for their public policies and legislation. Non-Christians cannot be required to have their domestic and foreign policy based on another’s faith. If domestic and foreign policy is to be based on the Bible, for all American citizens, the Bible must be proven to be an historically and factually accurate document. If it cannot be, it cannot be used as a basis or reason for any political decision regarding either foreign or domestic policy. This is a point arguable under American law. It is a point that needs to be argued.

The American-Israeli relationship is important, as are many other relationships that America has with foreign powers, but not for the reasons, and certainly not for the agenda, of conservative Christian Fundamentalists. Abortion, civil liberties, gay-rights and education are all issues that need to be open to public discussion, debate and resolution, but again, not directed by the agenda and limitations of Christian Fundamentalists. The courts do not want to hear a case disproving the existence of the Christian god, yet we are subject to the authoritarian dictates, as interpreted by those looking for the interpretations they prefer, of that unproven being’s discredited holy text(9).

We don’t need to argue the proof of a god. What we must do, is demand the legal, scientific and historic credibility of the Bible if it is going to be cited when establishing policy, procedure, or law. Christians cannot be allowed to have it both ways any longer. If Biblical Christian teachings are going to be used as the basis for, or influence on, foreign and domestic policy, they must be proven credible, or be removed from the discussion as irrelevant. When Christianity decided to assert itself in politics and the affairs of the state, it removed from itself the protections of a personal choice of faith and has subjected itself to the rigors of academic and scientific analyses. This is not a case of religion being attacked, but a case of defense from the onslaught of tyrannical religious law and dangerously delusional prophecy. The rules have been skewed. Christians are not required to offer any proof of their religion, yet they are allowed to offer their religion as reason and basis for policy and legislation. This must stop. When it comes to politics; the Bible cannot be used unless the Bible can be proved.

Amen.

(1) – http://wrmea.org/component/content/article/245-2008-november/3845-congress-watch-a-conservative-estimate-of-total-direct-us-aid-to-israel-almost-114-billion.html
(2) – http://www.wrmea.com/us_aid_to_israel/index.htm
(3) – http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/11/28/sarah-palins-visit-with-billy-graham-dinner-prayer-and-a-phot/
(4) – http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/144111/what_sarah_palin’s_”jewish_people_will_be_flocking_to_israel”_prediction_really_means/
(5) – http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/11/17/sarah_palin_is_even_crazier_than_i_imagined
(6) – http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2009/aug/10/religion-george-bush
(7) – http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2010/02/25/bill-oreilly-nails-stephanopoulos-critique-palin-compares-nancy-pelo
(8) – http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/33535.html
(9) – http://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0618680004

Related posts:

1. AFA Attacks AAA over Gay-Friendly Policy Imagine the horror Don Wildmon must have felt. The dread...
2. Anti-Gay Wisconsin Attorney General Ignores Duties for “Faith” J.B. Van Hollen, Attorney General for the state of Wisconsin,...
3. Christian Fundamentalists Support Israel. Why? Gary North explains why fundamentalists support Israel. This bizarre, disturbing...

The organization which met with Tina Tchen, director of the White House Office of Public Engagement — the President himself did not put in an appearance — is the Secular Coalition for America. This 501(c)(4) non-profit lobbying organization has ten member non-profits, including American Atheists, the Council for Secular Humanism, the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, and the Secular Student Alliance.

Christian organizations were naturally horrified by the subjects the Godless brought up for discussion:

• Child Medical Neglect: The atheists pointed out that many “faith-based” child care centers don’t have to meet health and safety standards that everyone else must meet. Expecting them to clean? But, won’t God keep the kids safe from E.coli?
• Proselytizing in the Military: Supported by news headlines about “Jesus Rifles”, SCA discussed their concerns about the increase in Christian evangelicals in the military and their self-described “duty” to spread the word of “god”.
• 
  Office of Faith-Based Initiatives: The SCA commented that the Obama administration’s expansion of Bush, Jr’s Office of Faith-Based Initiatives unconstitutionally funnels the taxes of American citizens to religious organizations. What separation of Church and State?

How did religious organizations react? Did they hope that the Obama administration took this opportunity to witness to the damned? Perhaps express joy in the interest of other Americans in the future of our country? (Yes, our country. Not their country.)

Let’s not be silly.

Council Nedd, chair of In God We Trust:

It is one thing for Administration to meet with groups of varying viewpoints, but it is quite another for a senior official to sit down with activists representing some of the most hate-filled, anti-religious groups in the nation.

IGWT’s press release was paranoid and vitriolic, accusing the Obama administration of “meeting to plot political strategy with 60 atheist activists”.

The failure of people like Nedd to distinguish between atheists — people who simply don’t believe in a god or gods — and antitheists — people who believe religion is inherently destructive — is apparent in their histrionics. Nedd whined:

President Obama seems to believe that it is a good idea to have a key senior aide plan political strategy with people who believe faith in God is a disease. Some of the people in this coalition believe the world would be better off with no Christians and no Jews and they aren’t shy about it.

The fact that this meeting is happening at all is an affront to the vast majority of people of all faiths who believe in God. The President should tell the American people whether he believes these groups’ hate-filled views to be ‘mainstream’ and worthy of his supposedly inclusive administration.

Here we see Nedd’s true colors. An “inclusive administration” can only include people who share Nedd’s beliefs in invisible magic men.

Nedd was not alone. Bill Donohue, President of the Catholic League, wailed:

People of faith, especially Christians, have good reason to wonder exactly where their interests lie with the Obama administration. Now we have the definitive answer. In an unprecedented move, leaders of a Presidential administration are hosting some of the biggest anti-religious zealots in the nation!

Religious leaders, of course, never involve themselves in politics, and have always been completely shut out. For example:

President Obama and members of his administration avoided the Family’s “National Prayer Breakfast” like the plague . . . Oh, wait.

Obama immediately dismantled the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives founded by former President G.W. Bush . . . Oops, he expanded it.

Previous administrations have never met with religious figures, right?

Sure, James Dobson (Focus on the Family) visited the White House a reported 24 times, 10 to see President Bush in person.

Fine, Andrea Lafferty of the Traditional Values Coalition visited the White House 50 times between February 2001 and March 2008, with six audiences with Bush.

Jerry Falwell? Only eight visits during the Bush administration.

Meanwhile, Obama has offered speeches on faith, thrown taxpayer funds to religious organizations, and sent lawyers to defend the Defens of Marriage Act by comparing homosexuality to incest and child rape.

Obama has dared to throw a bone — a wing, I believe, and broken — to non-theists. All Hell is breaking loose among Christians, who doubtless see this as the first tiny breach in their impenetrable dike of irrationality and intolerance . . . After all, in the good old days, Presidents took their stance on atheists:

No, I don’t know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God. – George H. W. Bush

Related posts:

1. Obama’s Nudist White House On his first full day as President, Barack Obama overturned...
2. Liam Fox: Christendom Crucifies the Constitution Leading Christian organizations blasted the Obama administration for meeting with...
3. Atheists Sue Over Inauguration Oh, yes. Those wacky atheists are at it again.This time,...

I realize that such a statement sounds melodramatic and extreme. In fact, it sounds like something you may read on the placards hoisted high, by some of the very people that support the actions I’m referring to.

The following events were well reported and recorded during this past week. Colorado State Senator Dave Schultheis proposed Senate Bill SB089 this past week, which would have undermined important democratic institutions. The vehicle for this subversion? A “Religious Bill of Rights” that, in addition to being an insult to the First Amendment, was deemed generally redundant to the ‘real’ Bill of Rights.(1)

This Bill was purportedly necessary for the protection of religious persons from attacks on their religious rights in the public school system, despite the fact that there was no evidence or even anecdotal testimony to support the need for such protection.

The particulars of the Bill and its outrageous demands have been well covered (2)(3). The two most controversial areas of concern?

• Special rights for teachers: Teachers would not have to teach anything that may disagree with their religious views, and may openly display their own religious material in their classrooms.
• Special rights for students: Students could refuse or oppose course material for the same reason, that it didn’t agree with their religious views(1).

The part of the story that I would like to draw attention to is the resulting effect such a Bill would have on the ability of the elected officials of the school board to implement the wishes and demands of the electorate. What is the affect on our democracy if the curriculum of our public school system is influenced by dictates from either one, or even several competing, religious theologies?

The bill is laden with tacit threats of increased and ongoing costly court challenges, even against individual board members, if the public school system refused to adopt and assertively implement its guidelines and demands. The goal of this blatant coercion was the usurping of the authority from our duly-elected school board officials.

The individuals on the school board are the representatives of the people and are required to be responsible to all of the people, on all matters relating to their schools, including curricula. Although not legally binding in its initial form, this Religious Bill of Rights would have usurped that authority over curricula and placed it, indirectly as well as possibly directly, in the hands of religious leaders and clerics. Senator Schultheis himself is a conservative Christian Fundamentalist.

The issues at stake are not whether a student or employee of the public school system can say a prayer before their meal or during lesson breaks, or peacefully study their religious text in the cafeteria during their lunch hour, or anything else as personal or benign. Such things are well within their existing Constitutional rights. What was at stake is the right for a religion to use the public school system as a venue for their proselytizing and means of imposing their discriminatory theological doctrine on society by having control over the public education system’s curricula . . . or by placing teachers in schools who will subvert curricula by refusal to teach certain lessons.

What was attempted was nothing shy of a deliberate move to subvert democratic institutions and the American Constitution for the imperialistic goals of religious sects and their attempt to promote only information that supports their dogma while censoring any information that may expose and challenge the inconsistencies, and lack of scientific or historical basis, of their unsupportable claims.

Fortunately, Senator Schultheis’ poor negotiating skills made killing the bill in committee possible(4).

Although Senator Schultheis is a very vocal and evangelical follower of Jesus, the wording of the Bill only referred to religions in general and plural. If these powers of veto or influence are applied equally to all religions, the resulting affects on the curricula would be crippling to our educational system.

Creationists often demand that their myth regarding the origins of humanity be taught along side the science of evolution, and given equal weight and credibility as an alternative explanation. If this is similarly intended with this bill, and is applied to all religions, the resulting chaos of irrationality could boggle the minds of some of our potentially best and brightest. We would be presenting children with a cacophony of ignorance, infusing ideas of a flat earth created in six days with stars as heavenly projectiles and the laws of physics subject to the whims of an imaginary, invisible, supernatural being. Additionally, the social impact of Christian and Islamic doctrine against any who do not share their faith, as well as the discrimination against women and homosexuals, would destroy the more tolerant, secular environment.

The danger of handing this sort of all-inclusive influence to several religions is obvious, but I’m sure that equal access to all religions was not the intent of this bill. The apparent motive behind this Bill is not in the name of religious freedom or tolerance, but in the name of freedom and tolerance for one specific religion. I’m sure that references to democracy would eventually be invoked to stave of any threat of competing theologies, ideologies, or even provable and observable truths, and preferential rights would be claimed, as a voting majority, by the most popular religion. All, in violation of the Constitution.

These sort of strategies employed are brilliant examples of political savvy and masterful statesmanship designed to erode the democracy from within by using its strengths against it. Equality, access, respect and tolerance, and the systems and institutions that have been developed striving towards these principles, are actively undermined with “divine” justification and absolution. Christianity and Islam, and any other authoritarian theologies, are the stated enemies of democracy.

The two most common religions in America, and globally, don’t require observance by their adherents alone. They require obedience and observance by an entire society. They are dictatorial and tyrannical and anathema to democracy. These religions require adherents to evangelize, to witness, and to spread the word of their “god” in order to convert the non-believers. These religions have rules and doctrines for society that adherents are commanded to demand, even of non-believers.

It is the duty of Christians, or followers of Jesus, and it is the same for Muslims, the devotees of Islam. They must be imperialistic and work to convert or coerce others to follow the doctrines and dictates of their religion. That is their role. The public sphere is not a place of acceptance, tolerance and cooperation where they seek only to coexist, but a place to be evangelized and bent to their will.

This close call was in the state of Colorado, ranked only the forty-first most religious state in America. Texas, ranked the eleventh most religious, has already reintroduced the Christian Bible as part of their curriculum and Kentucky, ranked tenth, seems as though it will soon follow suit.

These are not isolated incidents of extremists trying to impact the American system. Religious organizations and movements, in this case the conservative Christian Right, the followers of Jesus and American fundamentalists, are working vigorously to circumvent democratic processes in America’s public and governmental institutions. Cloaked in the guise of American traditional values and American patriotism, the Christian conservative movement works diligently to further its own agenda. It will not be one sweeping event of momentous individual impact that will establish fundamental political and social change; rather, small incremental changes building one upon the other will be the standard method of operation. Even if it means subverting the Constitution of the United States.

(1) – Colorado Religious Bill of Rights – Bill Text
(2) – http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/02/15/do-we-really-need-a-religious-bill-of-rights/
(3) – http://www.palibandaily.com/2010/02/17/colorados-religious-bill-of-rights/
(4) – http://coloradoindependent.com/47541/controversial-schultheis-public-schools-religion-bill-ends-in-a-whimper
(5) – http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=504

Related posts:

1. Colorado’s Religious Bill of Rights: Religious Insurgents’ Latest Assault on Schools Religious insurgents attempted to ram a "religious bill of rights...
2. Islam on Capitol Hill Organizer: “We Want to Islamize Democracy” Christian fundamentalists brewed up a storm of controversy over Friday's...
3. Atheists Visit White House – Religious Right has Fit After meeting with various religious groups for many, many years,...

Personhood USA reports that both Personhood Colorado and Personhood Mississippi have submitted adequate signatures to place “Personhood Amendments” to their state constitutions on the ballot in November.

Christian News Wire reports that Personhood Colorado gathered 79,817 signatures (76,047 were required) via an all-volunteer campaign.

Colorado’s amendment reads:

“Section 32. Person defined. As used in sections 3*, 6**, and 25*** of Article II of the state constitution, the term “person” shall apply to every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being.”

Colorado state legislator and amendment co-sponsor Gualberto Garcia-Jones remarks:

The 79,817 signatures are an indicator that the people of Colorado are determined to protect innocent life; we will not rest until every child is protected by love and by law.

Personhood Mississippi’s site makes it crystal clear that this is a religious movement:

As an update, we still need help from pro-life Christians, families, churches, and organizations in the Delta, Southwest Miss, the Coast, & Metro Jackson . . . If your church has not gotten involved, have them do so. If they have, contact other churches in your area.

Finally, as a reminder, we want to encourage all pro-life Mississippi Christians to get involved — not only with our efforts, but with pouring their lives into the “true religion” (James 1:27) of caring for widows & orphans.

Personhood Mississippi has collected over 114,000 (of 95,000 required) to make this into law:

Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Mississippi: SECTION 1. Article III of the constitution of the state of Mississippi is hearby amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION TO READ: Section 33. Person defined. As used in this Article III of the state constitution, “The term ‘person’ or ‘persons’ shall include every human being from the moment of fertilization, cloning or the functional equivalent thereof.” This initiative shall not require any additional revenue for implementation.

What does this mean?

First, it means that abortion — even to save the life of the mother, even in cases of child rape or incest — would be legally considered murder.

Second, it outlaws certain forms of birth control.

• IUDs prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine lining.
• The morning-after pill (RU-486) causes the uterus to reject a recently-implanted egg.

What about fertility clinics?

All those spare fertilized eggs that didn’t get implanted and are in cold storage . . . yes, they’re people, too. I’m not sure how they plan to handle them; require someone to bear them?

Are there unforeseen consequences?

Unforeseen by whom? The proposers may not consider overpopulation a problem.

More interestingly, the amendment states, “This initiative shall not require any additional revenue for implementation.” This is not true.

Many sensible parents terminate pregnancies when the health of the mother is at stake. Personhood would make this impossible, meaning huge medical expenses — born by the taxpayers — to keep the mother alive through her pregnancy.

Many sensible parents also terminate pregnancies when the child is going to be severely deformed or subject to a hereditary disease. Personhood would make this impossible as well, meaning any number of children needing life-long care will become wards of the state.

What do you think of Personhood?

Related posts:

1. Coming Soon: Personhood for Frozen Embryos In 2008, a Colorado ballot initiative (Amendment 48) to give...
2. Colorado’s Religious Bill of Rights: Religious Insurgents’ Latest Assault on Schools Religious insurgents attempted to ram a "religious bill of rights...
3. Satan Possesses Mississippi Coed A Pelahatchie, Mississippi high school student spent three days speaking...

The Tea Party movement started in late 2008, as American taxpayers took to the streets to express their frustration over George W. Bush’s bailout of Wall Street firms. Back then, they were a disorganized, grassroots bunch, a fringe movement of disorganized independent thinkers, including Republicans, Democrats, liberals, and conservatives. They counted Libertarians and many, many Independents among their ranks. Some were pro-life, some were pro-choice. Some espoused Biblical values, some thought that group sodomy is a wonderful thing among truckers or football teams. They were of all races, coming from all walks of life.

All this motley crew had in common was opposition to massive bailouts of failing corporations and banks, funded by American taxpayers — and disenchantment with both George W. Bush (may his Administration rest in peace) and Obama bin Laden. They were just plain sick of partisan politics, and ready to head off in a whole new direction.

We couldn’t have that!

Enter Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, and Judson Phillips.

Beck had perhaps the most challenging role of all: Talking out of both sides of his mouth without getting caught. Prison Planet put together a great summary, aptly titled, “Glenn Beck for Dummies“.

Glenn Beck is being characterized by the establishment as the leader of the freedom movement and yet a closer analysis of his ideology reveals that Beck is nothing more than a fake revolutionary who has supported and is pushing policies that are diametrically opposed to those embraced by true constitutionalists.

. . . leading conservatives and libertarians down a meaningless partisan rabbit hole in a clear attempt to neutralize genuine opposition to the big government agenda of the Obama administration.

Authors Paul Joseph Watkins and Alex Jones point out the inconsistencies in Beck’s supposed “libertarian” stance . . . Things like his support for the USA Patriot Act and Bush’s Banker Bailout of 2008; his December 4, 2009 appearance on Bill O’Reilly’s show to promote a new 2% VAT tax; and the 9/12 project, which eschews the liberty America was founded upon in favor of the false security of a police state.

They conclude:

Glenn Beck is a fake revolutionary whose job it is to lead conservatives and libertarians away from uniting behind the real issues, while absorbing the successes of the patriot movement and in turn discrediting it by way of his clownish antics and easily derided mannerisms. He is part of a wider approach on behalf of Fox News to become a beacon for freedom movement and then act as a steam valve for its issues, deluding people into thinking their interests are being represented when in reality they are merely being sucked up and spewed out as something entirely misrepresentative.

Palin . . . To be honest, I’m not sure if she really thought she was cleverly co-opting the “common folk”, who think that a woman who gets paid $100,000 to give a speech is “just one of them”, or if she is just enjoying the ride. Having watched portions of her Tea Party convention speech, I’m not sure she knows what she thinks. I’m going to give her a pass on conspiratorial efforts and assume she’s simply demonstrating her blind (and witless) ambition and taking advantage of the situation.

While Glenn Beck made the “teabaggers” a laughingstock, Judson Phillips made them a business, and a fundraising arm of the right wing.

He began by copyrighting “Tea Party Nation” and starting a members-only password-protected website. On that site, it is declared that you can and will be banned for “being a liberal” — or so I’m told, the FAQ is Members Only — making it crystal clear that the grassroots days of long-ago 2008 are long gone.

The members-only Tea Party Nation website pretty much demonstrates the openness and transparency of this movement:

• Want to read the Blogs and find out what this Tea Party Nation is all about? Sorry, Members Only.
• Look over the Forum, see what the rank-and-file talk about? Members Only.
• See if there’s a Group in your area, maybe meet a few folks? Nope, gotta be a Member.
• FAQ? Resources? Events? Only for Members’ Eyes.
• Buy Tea Party Nation merchandise? Anybody can do that!!

Phillips reached what could be the climax of his Party last week, charging over $500 per person to attend his for-profit convention (plus over $300 to watch Sister Sarah Palin test out her patented “PalmPrompter”)!

Phillips made what was a true movement of the people into a narrow, bigoted, whites-only, extreme Christian conservative coalition and fundraising mechanism for Republican candidates! As a result, he — with the help of rodeo clown Glenn Beck and airhead Sarah Palin — have ensured that the American two-party system will remain intact. The most recent threat was swiftly and easily co-opted into the Christian conservative movement.

Congratulations, Judson Phillips, Tea Party Traitor!

I signed up on the Tea Party Nation site today. It asked for my email address, full name, birth date, gender, and also website and twitter name. I was then informed that my membership would be approved after an administrator reviewed it, and was given the chance to “withdraw [my] application”! If I’m approved, I’ll report from “inside the belly of the beast”.

Related posts:

1. Palin: Tea Partiers Must “Pick a Party”; No Third Party Sarah Palin reiterates her support for the status quo, stating...
2. Palin: “Absurd Not to Consider 2012 Presidential Run”, Snubs Tea Party Nation On Fox News Sunday, Sarah Palin commented that she felt...
3. Glenn Beck in Bed with Big Business There may be a modestly-successful boycott of his television show...

Hedging her bets, Sarah Palin charged $100,000 to speak at the first Tea Party Nation convention, where attendees paid $500 to get in the convention plus over $300 just to hear her speech. By not speaking for free, Palin avoids being tied too closely to Tea Party Nation.

The Wall Street Journal reports that while Palin was happy to gain support from the (for-profit) Tea Party (Nation) movement, she didn’t want them to interfere with the two-party system:

Asked whether she might run on the Tea Party ticket, Ms. Palin declined to answer directly, saying she hoped that the nascent movement remains a “movement of the people” and that its members “don’t believe that they need some kind of well-oiled machine” to have a political impact.

While Tea Partiers may be offended, they shouldn’t be surprised. It was only just over a week ago that Palin recommended that the Republican Party absorb Tea Party Nation:

Fox’s Greta Van Susteren asked if tea party candidates would end up siphoning votes from GOP nominees, or if the movement will “merge with the Republican Party.”

“They need to merge,” Palin said. “Definitely, they need to merge. I think those who are wanting the divisions and the divisiveness and the controversy — those are the ones who don’t believe in the message. And they’re the ones, I think, stirring it up.”

The pressure to push Tea Party Nation from its original roots as a movement espousing low taxes and smaller government — not a police state and farm subsidies and Republican-only government — may be the reason both Michele Bachmann and Martha Blackburn dropped out . . . leaving Palin as the only big name.

Blogger Kleinhelder at the Nashville Post sums it up nicely.

This new tea party bears no resemblance to the one that began a year ago as a reaction to the collapse of our financial system and the subsequent bailout. That movement of ragtag and unorganized libertarians, independents and conservatives was something new and unique. An authentic protest movement angered not just by the new President, Barack Obama, who had presided over the bailouts but the president who started the ball rolling and whose incompetence had led to the crisis in the first place, George W. Bush.

The people we saw on the steps of Legislative Plaza and county courthouses across the state last year weren’t “movement conservatives.” Certainly the movement conservatives were there at those protests but the tea parties were much bigger in size, scope and concept than just traditional modern conservatism reheated. Last night, the professional conservatives fixed that for good.

For over a year the media has struggled to try and define just what exactly the movement was. Now they have a definition.

Sarah Palin.

WSJ provides a bit more on Tea Party Nation:

As first reported by POLITICO, Tea Party Nation is a for-profit company that also operates a social network site by the same name. [Tea Party Nation CEO Judson] Phillips intends to turn a profit from the convention, with the stated goal of seeding a so-called 527 group that would air ads praising conservative candidates or criticizing their opponents.

But on Saturday he said there likely wouldn’t be much profit, and whatever money is made will go to a second convention he’s planning for July.

I’m sure Phillips will not show any substantial profit from the convention, and that he will clearly demonstrate why on the Tea Party Nation website.

Be careful if you decide to join the Tea Party Nation forum. Irregular Times collected a few details from the “revolutionary, non-partisan, 100%-password-protected (including the FAQ)” website:

* it is a corporation which has trademarked the phrase “Tea Party Nation” and will sue anyone else who uses the words.

* “You can and will be banned for being a liberal.”

* “Tea Party Nation reserves the right to ban anyone for any reason we feel necessary”

* “Trashing of TPN will not be tolerated.”

* “Questions regarding TPN posted in the public forums or blogs on the site will be deleted.”

* “It is not a forum for… calls for militant uprisings.”

* “Tea Party Nation’s strict No Tolerance policy will not make exceptions… if you see such postings, you immediately report them”

While Tea Party Nation’s speakers call for a revolution for the cameras, any actual revolutionary behavior or dissent will be result in swift dismissal. That’s an interesting combination.

A screenshot would be nice, Irregular Times guys!

Related posts:

1. Palin: Tea Partiers Must “Pick a Party”; No Third Party Sarah Palin reiterates her support for the status quo, stating...
2. Tea Party Traitors, or, How Judson Phillips Poisoned Our Tea Judson Phillips, with help from his friends Glenn Beck and...
3. Most Americans Don’t Want President Palin A new CBS News poll finds that a substantial majority...

Richard and Malinda Pickett have spent the last five years working to adopt three siblings from an orphanage in Haiti. Their heartwarming story (sans Silsby’s subterfuge) may be found in its entirety HERE. In part:

Richard Pickett

We had been supporting three siblings for about two years when I (Richard) took a trip to Haiti in May 2005. On the trip I had the oldest boy, Danielo, with me the entire time, the oldest girl, Daniela, for all but two days of my trip, and Danel, the little boy, was with me 6 of the 11 days. During this time they captured my heart. They are bright children and have very good hearts . . .

I decided then that Malinda and I had to adopt the children. I worried that when I returned to the States that she wouldn’t understand. There was just no way in my mind I could see leaving these children in Haiti. In 11 days I had fallen in love with them. I spoke briefly with Malinda about it while I was in Haiti and she seemed receptive. We only spoke three times for 10 minutes a piece while I was in Haiti so there wasn’t a lot of time to discuss any details.

When I came back Malinda was ready to adopt them. We started calling the children once a week and she would sit there and cry the whole time. She would tell me her heart ached as if her own natural children were away from her. And she hadn’t even met them yet.

We’re now in our 5th year of adoption.

Over the five years of work to adopt the three children, the Picketts visited Haiti a number of times, spending quality time with the siblings at the orphanage outside Port-au-Prince. Following the quake, their story made local headlines:

It’s been a 5-year battle to adopt the children, and the Pickett’s haven’t lost hope. They legally adopted the children almost two years ago, and now they may finally get to come home.

“This week’s been a rollercoaster, not knowing if Daniela is alive, then finding out she is, and then finding out we can get their visas.” With visas ready, Richard plans to go to Haiti and bring their children back next week.

After Richard left, Malinda says, the calls from Silsby started.

[Silsby said] “When they get to the Dominican, I’ll help you get them over.”

And I told her no, my husband is over in Haiti advocating for our adoption to be finished and get our kids home and you know at this time I don’t think we need any help.

Silsby wouldn’t give up, and called back twice more. Malinda tried to impress upon Silsby the effort involved in adopting children from Haiti:

Do you realize? We’ve been waiting 5 years to get our children, you know it’s not that easy to just go to Haiti and pick up kids. You know, you can’t do that.

Richard Pickett brings the tale of Silsby’s obsessive stalking to a close.

She kept persisting, and Malinda kept saying no, don’t bother our children, and Laura decided to show up at the orphanage anyway, and ask for our children, and said that Malinda had sent her there. And our children were not there at the time, they were with me.

The hubris of this woman!

Richard Pickett doesn’t think Silsby was interested so much in heroics, as something else. He read of her financial woes (which the Paliban Daily recounted for you HERE), and thinks Silsby saw dollar signs in those three teenagers.

. . . maybe do a mild form of extortion, because here we are, obviously interested in caring for our children and if she had them in the Dominican, she could use us as leverage to have us pay for their support.

UPDATE: The UK Times reports that Silsby is also due in court for separate civil trials in February and March.

Ms Silsby, who is currently in a cell in Haiti, is due in court in Idaho for a civil jury trial on February 22.

She is also due to appear in court in March to answer a second civil suit brought against her by an Idaho law firm, Beer & Cain, for $4,526 in unpaid fees.

What do you think? Was Silsby after glory? Money? A life of luxury in the Dominican Republic, funded by others? All of the above?

Related posts:

1. Laura Silsby’s Messiah Complex Laura Silsby, leader of the group of American Baptists arrested...
2. American Family Association Supports Pat Robertson’s Haiti “Satan Pact” with Lies In a move that probably shouldn't come as a surprise,...
3. Christians Give Haitians What They Need Most – Solar-Powered Bibles A Christian group is working overtime to ensure that the...

As the Wall Street Journal reports, Laura Silsby and her live-in nanny Charisa Coulter formed a non-profit organization last November. The “New Life Children’s Refuge” is, according to Silsby,

dedicated to rescuing, loving and caring for orphaned, abandoned and impoverished Haitian and Dominican children, demonstrating God’s love and helping each child find healing, hope, joy and new life in Christ.

Drew Ham, one of the pastors at Central Valley Baptist Church of Meridian, Idaho, informs the WSJ that the pair brought their idea to his congregation, which shared their desperate desire for heroics by swooping in uninvited and “rescuing” children in other nations with different cultures.

In 2006, Silsby was eWomen's Businesswoman of the Year.

Unfortunately, it seems Silsby hadn’t any money to get these grand plans off the ground.

Ms. Silsby had purchased a two-story house in Meridian, where a neighbor said she was known for her blue Lexus convertible and her dog, Bentley. Her financial difficulties mounted last year. Idaho court records show several judgments against Ms. Silsby in 2009 . . .

One suit, filed in federal court in Miami, alleged that Personal Shopper [Ms. Silsby's now failed business] owed more than $320,000 to Florida-based TSG Media Inc. The suit was settled in November 2008, according to an attorney for TSG, David Filler. He declined to disclose the terms of the settlement, but he said that Personal Shopper failed to make good on the settlement

…

In December, her house was foreclosed on, according to John Browning, a Boise broker who said he was hired to sell the house as part of the foreclosure.

Ms. Silsby said she would be leaving the country soon, said Mark Ehlhardt, who runs a UPS store in nearby Kuna where Ms. Silsby rented a mailbox.

Further, 14 former employees of Silsby have filed suit, seeking unpaid wages over the past two years — including time before the company ran into financial difficulty. I guess Silsby doesn’t need to honor her commitments.

Following the quake, Silsby and Coulter got busy. Shucking off all connection to reality — lack of funds, lack of legal counsel, complete personal financial collapse — they came up with a half-baked plan and took advantage of the quake to gain donations.

. . . they planned to rent a 45-room hotel in Cabarete, a coastal town in the Dominican Republic near Magante, where they intended to house Haitian children while building their permanent facility. The plan was to drive a bus to Port-au-Prince “and gather 100 orphans from the streets and collapsed orphanages,” and return to the Dominican Republic, the document said.

The document may be found here. In part,

Another attempt to gain glory leads to another fall.

The Plan:
Rescue Orphans from Port au Prince, Haiti
• Friday/Saturday, Jan 22nd : NLCR team fly to the DR
• Sun Jan 23rd: Drive bus from Santo Domingo into Port au Prince, Haiti and gather 100 orphans from the streets and collapsed orphanages, then return to the DR
• Mon Jan 24th: Bus arrives in Cabarete, DR at New Life Children Refuge
• Haiti Team: Laura Silsby, Charisa Coulter, Carla Thompson, Nicole & Corrinna Lankford
Paul Thompsons Team from East Side Baptist Church, Twin Falls
Provide love and care for the children
• Interim New Life Children Refuge Location: NLCR is in the process of buying land and building an orphanage, school and church in Magante on the northern coast of the Dominican Republic. Given the urgent needs from this earthquake, God has laid upon our hearts the need to go now vs. waiting until the permanent facility is built. He has provided an interim solution in nearby Cabarete, where we will be leasing a 45 room hotel and converting it into an orphanage until the building of the NLCR is complete.
This interim location will enable us to provide a loving environment for up to 150 children, from infants to 12 years old.
• Team Needed: NLCR is praying and seeking people who have a heart for God and a desire to share God’s love with these precious children, helping them heal and find new life in Christ. Please prayerfully consider a 2 week or longer mission trip to help NLCR provide rotating staffing for the care of the children over the next 6 months.

Prayer Requests
• For discernment of God’s will and direction throughout this trip and for Him to prepare the way before us
• For God to continue to grant favor with the Dominican Government in allowing us to bring as many orphans as we can into the DR
• For God to guide us to the children He wants us to bring to NLCR and for their physical, emotional and spiritual healing

Not having money for this expensive feat was no problem. After all, their imaginary friend was helping them in their heroics. And people online were praying for them! (Oh, and asking for donations. We can’t expect God to do the heavy lifting.)

Showing up with a bus, with no knowledge of local laws or culture, would be far more helpful than, say, contributing to aid organizations working to do something useful!

Silsby wouldn’t let details get in her way . . . like documentation. She had a mission from God to save these children from voodoo and introduce them to her imaginary friend!

Last week, the group entered Haiti from the Dominican Republic, met with the pastor and gathered a group of children, Mr. Ham said. The group had signed permission “to take children from Haiti back to the Dominican Republic,” as well as documentation from the Dominican Republic itself, he said. But when the group got to the border, Haitian officials told the group they lacked “one document,” Mr. Ham said.

Carlos Castillo, the Dominican Republic’s consul general in Port-au-Prince, gave a different account: In an interview he said he met with Ms. Silsby on Friday and told her she lacked any documents to transport children, and warned her not to try or she could be arrested.

Sounds like someone’s not telling the truth. Does anyone care to guess who?

What is accomplished when we decide to engage in great heroics that bring us personal glory, instead of helping in a more humble, yet productive way? In this case, a number of children are removed from their parents, and put through additional hell, to no useful purpose. And the heroes likely get six to nine years in jail.

My question for Silsby: If your goal is to help children, aren’t there plenty of abused, poverty-stricken, neglected kids right here in the United States that you can help? Why is it necessary to be the Great Hero swooping into another nation and taking children away from their home?

Granted, it does have certain Christian appeal. Many Christians, for example, believe in the “Rapture”, in which all “True Christians” will be abducted by aliens lifted up to Heaven in an instant, before God unleashes years of torment upon humanity. Is that not exactly what Silsby was trying to do? Provide a “Rapture” for Haitian children, snatching them away from the failing world of their birth to take them to a new, beautiful place where they would live in peace and serenity with God?

UPDATE on Laura Silsby:

Silsby’s group attempted to abduct the adoptive children of a Bowling Green, Kentucky couple during their Haiti trip.

Richard and Malinda Pickett of Bowling Green, Kentucky have spent five years working to adopt three Haitian children. Despite Malinda’s insistence that they did not want Silsby’s “help”, Silsby showed up at the orphanage in Haiti to pick up their children . . . claiming Malinda had sent her.

More HERE. And a h/t to PPT at Websleuths.com for pointing out this disturbing twist!

UPDATE on Eric Evans:

Evans wants everybody to know that not only is he not building a complex for Silsby, but he’s never even discussed it with her:

Evans has been deluged by reporters calling him and knocking on his door wanting to know more about the Kuna project, which he had never heard of until today. He said he did talk to the Journal, but did not know where the information about the Kuna home came from.

Kuna City Planner Steve Hasson also has not heard of any such project.

Evans met Silsby, who has been charged with child abduction in Haiti, a couple of years ago when he sold her a house in Meridian. He has not worked with her on any other projects since then, Evans said.

Thanks to commenter Tai for the Evans update! -Jenny

Update: Adding a poll. -Jenny

Related posts:

1. Laura Silsby’s Messiah Complex, Part II Laura Silsby, not content illegally transporting Haitian kids, tried to...
2. American Family Association Supports Pat Robertson’s Haiti “Satan Pact” with Lies In a move that probably shouldn't come as a surprise,...
3. Christians Give Haitians What They Need Most – Solar-Powered Bibles A Christian group is working overtime to ensure that the...

Who’s Bryan Fischer?

Bryan Fischer is the AFA’s Director of Issue Analysis. He hosts the radio program “Focal Point” on AFR Talk, which is a division of the American Family Association. He writes a blog hosted on www.afa.net, in which he provides a written response to a listener.

The listener thought it was not appropriate for Mr. Fischer to suggest that the United States should establish legal sanctions against those who engage in homosexual behavior. Let’s have a look at Mr. Fischer’s response:

It might be worth noting that what I actually suggested is that we impose the same sanctions on those who engage in homosexual behavior as we do on those who engage in intravenous drug abuse, since both pose the same kind of risk of contracting HIV/AIDS.

I was unaware that lesbians had the same risk of contracting HIV as IV drug users. Here I thought their risk was far lower than that of, say, heterosexuals. Oh, he must mean homosexual men only.

But what about promiscuous men and women? After all, in Africa, HIV is primarily a heterosexual disease. Does Fischer promote legal sanctions against anyone engaging in relations outside of a monogamous marriage?

Is homosexuality like IV drug use?

According to Fischer, it is. He now suggests that homosexuality is an addiction, or should at least be treated as one:

I’d be curious to know what you think should be done with IV drug abusers, because whatever it is, I think the same response should be made to those who engage in homosexual behavior.

If you believe that what drug abusers need is to go into an effective detox program, then we should likewise put active homosexuals through an effective reparative therapy program.

Is there an effective reparative therapy program?

I’d be interested to see the program Mr. Fischer would recommend. After all, there’s no evidence that any of them have a lasting success rate.

The “highly successful” People Can Change program falsified its own success rate, and only surveyed participants between 6 months and one year after participation in their “therapy”.

Back in 2007, Evangelical magazine Christianity Today even questioned the efficacy of such programs in what was intended to be an unquestioningly-supportive article:

Most of the individuals who reported that they were heterosexual at Time 3 did not report themselves to be without experience of homosexual arousal, and did not report heterosexual orientation to be unequivocal and uncomplicated. … We believe the individuals who presented themselves as heterosexual success stories at Time 3 are heterosexual in some meaningful but complicated sense of the term.

How rigorous was the study? Christianity Today addresses this as well!

Jones and Yarhouse emphasize the imperfections of their research, carefully noting points at which their method could be criticized. For example, they had hoped for 300 or more participants, but found many Exodus ministries mysteriously uncooperative. In the end, they settled for 98 people in their initial sample. (To boost the sample size, Jones and Yarhouse added a less-than-ideal cohort who had already been involved in the program for one to three years.) They also chose not to use physiological measures of sexual attraction, primarily because Exodus ministries would have found the use of pornography in research ethically abhorrent. Though humble in their presentation, Jones and Yarhouse conclude that their research is the most rigorous ever conducted on this subject.

In other words, they relied entirely upon self-reporting by people with a strong emotional desire to be perceived by God (and everyone else) as heterosexual, instead of even attempting to determine attraction through an objective means. That ain’t a study.

Finally, as one blogger astutely points out:

If “change” means one is constantly fighting off same-sex urges, then that sounds more like “ex-gay” means ticking time bombs (Bob Allen, Larry Craig, and the like, who truly believe they are straight but seek out sex with men) or chaste individuals suppressing their orientation than it does a true conversion. Sexual orientation is not simply about sex acts, something the ex-gay movement continually fails to acknowledge when touting “success.”

Ceasing a behavior is not the same as changing your sexuality. Ceasing the behavior out of guilt because of belief that your imaginary friend will cast you into eternal torment because of it is psychologically damaging at best, and can lead to self-destructive behaviors at worst.

Let’s get back to Fischer.

Fischer now falls onto the Bible — the book of one religion, not the laws of a modern nation — to justify legal sanctions on Americans who engage in homosexual behavior.

Secondly, I’m afraid you’re simply wrong about the Bible’s perspective on the law and homosexuality.

Paul lists quite explicitly in 1 Timothy 1:8-11 the actions and behaviors that are the proper concern of the law:

“Now we know that the law is good, if one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine…”

The bottom line here is that, biblically, those “who practice homosexuality” should come under the purview of the law just as much as those who take people captive in order to sell them into slavery.

You express a belief in the Scriptures, and I trust your confidence in Scripture is not selective. If you believe all Scripture is inspired, then you are compelled to accept that legal sanctions may appropriately be applied to those who engage in homosexual behavior.

Mr. Fischer misses an important point. Paul is not speaking here of secular law, but of the Law of God. That is, law created by and enforced by God, not by man. Christians in Paul’s time were not in positions of power; they were being rounded up and fed to lions. They weren’t making secular laws.

The Law of God has but one punishment: Eternal damnation, no matter what the infraction. Human-administered punishments are not part of God’s Law (in the New Testament, according to “under grace” proponents).

Mr. Fischer is trying here to avoid the “but that is OLD TESTAMENT” trap by quoting New Testament Scripture. You see, if he quotes the Old Testament and says that Christians have to follow all of it, that means he has to change his life in ways he might not find convenient . . . like keeping Kosher.

Instead, like many so-called “supermarket Christians”, he has picked out the bits of the Bible that he finds useful to support his own radical agenda, taking them completely out of context, rather than creating an agenda which follows what the Bible actually says.

So, why should I care?

The American Family Association has about 2.5 million members. They’re a generally well-respected Christian organization. They have the ear of many candidates. Make sure your voice is heard, too.

Is it any surprise that Fischer, while working for the Idaho Values Alliance, openly expressed support for Uganda bravely keeping homosexuality illegal?

Here’s some good news: the government of Uganda is continuing to resist relentless efforts to accept homosexual behavior as normative. A government official said flatly that Uganda will not bow to international pressure to “legalize practices that are illegal, unnatural and abnormal.” The U.N., he declares, is tying to “impose homosexuality on the rest of us.” He adds, “It is the duty of Ugandans to be vigilant because agents of immorality are busy using all lies and deceptions to hurt our society.” Uganda has already seen a precipitous drop in the rate of HIV/AIDS by emphasizing abstinence before marriage and fidelity after. The day has now come where a nation in the Third World is well ahead of the United States when it comes to adopting public policy shaped in accordance with the truth about human sexuality. (Uganda Refuses to Bow to United Nations Pressure to Accept Homosexuality)

Related posts:

1. American Family Association Supports Pat Robertson’s Haiti “Satan Pact” with Lies In a move that probably shouldn't come as a surprise,...
2. American Family Association Poll on Gays in Military The American Family Association is activating its 2.5 million members...
3. Poll: Why Did God Smite Don Wildmon, American Family Assn Founder? American Family Association founder Don Wildmon was hospitalized this weekend...