Deference: "respectful submission or yielding to the judgment, opinion, will, etc. of another"

As I read this yesterday, I was reminded of the misplaced deference still paid to religious leaders by Americans and American Leaders at the beginning of the 21st century.

In the short NY Times piece we find Cardinal Egan in 2002 saying that "mistakes may have been made" by the Catholic Church over their institution's child-rape-priest-ring. Today, 10 years later, Egan says of his admission of "mistakes".."I should never have said that, I don't think we did anything wrong."

Egan's reversal, coincidentally, proves that god does not exist. Surely, if a god existed, that god would have struck the double-talking, arrogant, sanctimonious, child-rape-complicit, Cardinal dead mid-sentence.

In the national faux-outrage ContraceptionGate skerfuffle currently ruffling the feathers of religious Leaders in the U.S……Bishops of a worldwide cult, a cult whose priests were raping and molesting underage children for decades in the U.S. and Europe….Bishops who did nothing….and in several cases simply moved pedophile priests to a new source to fuel their deviancy….are shouting loudly that President Obama must defer to their moral authority about contraception.

I'm tempted to say "Christ on a cracker" in response…but I'll restrain myself.

In light of the priest-child-rape scandals, why would anyone defer to the moral judgment of any Catholic Leaders? On what basis would anyone look to Catholic Leaders as moral authorities? Catholicism's perverted and twisted doctrines of original sin, the inferiority of women, the perpetual virginity of Mother Mary, basic human sexuality and priestly celibacy all go into the Catholic cauldron of doctrinal chaos and confusion which has produced or attracted pedophile employees in the first place.

Make no mistake here about what I'm saying. It is not Catholic members I am railing against….it is Catholic Leadership. If covering up for, denying, and relocating pedophile priests after "scandals" erupted over multiple molestation accusations….is evidence that moral authority deference should continue to be given to Catholic Leaders….then we might as well close up shop and sign the place over to Lucifer right now.

Faith, and people of faith, should never be deferred to by the leaders or population of a secular nation. Ever.

And yet, when it comes to the monstrously evil acts of pedophile priests and their employers, that's exactly what has happened. Americans know the evil which Catholic Leaders tolerated and prolonged….and still, today, right now, our political discourse over contraception requirements pretends that these oh-so-moral men "of faith" should still be deferred to as uniquely-qualified vessels of "moral authority."

It's enough to nauseate a maggot.

Men of faith are men who base their entire worldview on invisible beings and folklore. To defer to these men of faith on issues of morality would be like deferring to the judgment of a person suffering from mental illness. A mentally-ill person often sees beings who are invisible, hears voices no one else hears. Yet, the idea of deferring on moral issues to a schitzophrenic would be seen as irresponsible and crazy.

Come, let us reason together….

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that their invisible god, Jehovah, prohibits human blood transfusions(Old Testament…"the life is in the blood"). Imagine that JW's operated a number of medical facilities and universities which employed many non-JW's. President Obama orders all health insurance plans in the federal exchanges to cover….blood transfusions. Obama makes no special carve out exception for JW-run facilities. Jehovah Witness Leaders claim that Obama's order violates their "right of conscience." JW Leaders claim that Obama's order to cover blood transfusions, without co-pay, in all health plans offered to JW-employees, forces JW's to "violate their consciences" by spending employee benefit money on insurance which covers a medical procedure they regard as evil.

Would Obama's order to JW-run institutions to offer blood transfusion-coverage be a violation of the first amendment rights of Jehovah's Witnesses?

Would it be okay for the JW cult to be paid it's due deference over blood transfusions in health care plans because JW's are people of faith? Should a "conscience" exception be granted to JW's giving them a special right to exclude themselves from offering blood transfusions in health insurance benefits to non-JW employees?

In the light of numerous similar conservative Boner-like blusterings over Catholics and contraception, if JW Leaders wouldn't be deferred to over blood transfusions….why should Catholic Leaders be deferred to over birth control?

It seems as if the American Catholic Bishops are oh-so-upset with President Obama's decision to mandate all employers to cover contraception in all health plans, even those provided by religious institutions to employees.

“In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences,” said Cardinal-designate Timothy M. Dolan, archbishop of New York and president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

No Cardinal-designate Dolan……Catholic Bishops burnt out their consciences when they decided to participate in covering up for child rapists under their employ. So, Obama isn't giving Catholic Bishops a year to "figure out how to violate" their own consciences. That steamboat done sailed. Obama is giving Catholic leaders a year to….comply with the laws of the nation……secular laws that those Bishops have been ordered by their Messiah to obey. Render unto Ceasar what belongs to Ceasar.

Through our nation's democratic process, Congress and the President passed into law a new national health care insurance program conservatives lovingly labeled ObamaCare. Health insurance exchanges are being structured right now….and so the details of what would and wouldn't be required to be covered by insurance companies to qualify for those exchanges are being ironed out.

Obama has ordered HHS Secretary Sebelius to include contraception coverage, without co-pay, as a requirement to qualify for the exchanges. All of the insurance plans made available on the exchanges in 2014 will include coverage for contraception. Contraception is legal to purchase in the U.S., and has been for decades.

The problem Catholic Bishops are having…..not Catholic parishioners, because 3 out of 4 Catholics simply ignore their Church's directives on the evil of contraception……is that Obama has ordered all employers, except for 100% sectarian employers, to make those contraception-including health care plans in the national exchanges available to all employees. The Catholic Church in America employs a lot of people. Many of whom are not Catholic. The Catholic Church in America also receives a lot of tax dollars from the federal government to assist them in their charitable operations.

All that said….here is where Catholic Bishops, most conservatives and even a few misguided quasi-progressives miss the mark on this alleged controversy….under the title "U.S. Bishops Vow to Fight HHS Edict", we find…

At issue, the U.S. bishops and other religious leaders insist, is the survival of a cornerstone constitutionally protected freedom that ensures respect for the conscience of Catholics and all other Americans.

Compare that claim with this…

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Did the Founders use the words "respect for conscience" in the first amendment? No. If the Founders would have included a provision in the 1st which stated that all citizens could disobey federal mandates which they deemed didn't "respect" their individual "consciences"…..Americans would be able to withhold their tax dollars from Washington on the basis that the use of those tax dollars violates their consciences. Do American citizens have the legal right to withhold their tax dollars from the federal government because, for example, their consciences are violated through the use of those tax dollars going for the wholesale killing of Muslims in Muslim lands? Of course not.

What U.S bishops claim as their right is not a right at all…..and that non-right is certainly not found in the 1st amendment. Congress is ordered by the 1st amendment to NOT make any laws which "establish" religion. The word "establish" means "institute, build, or bring into being". The U.S. Congress is prohibited from passing laws respecting the "building or bringing into being" of religion.

At the same time Congress is prohibited from respecting the establishment of religion through legislation…..religious citizens are guaranteed that government will honor the "free exercise" of religion without interference.

With Obama's new order to include contraception in all employer health plans….how are Catholics being denied their "free exercise" of religion? Catholics are not being forced by government to buy or use contraception. Catholics can still practice their religion as they wish. What Catholics cannot do….under Obama's order….is compel those who do not practice Catholicism….to practice Catholicism against their will.

The noise conservatives have been making on this Obama order has nothing to do with some Mother Goose version of a non-existent "protected freedom that ensures respect for the conscience of Catholics." Nothing could be further from the truth. The whining we're hearing is all about a misplaced sense of entitlement which many religionists are confusing with the 1st amendment.

When religious groups decide to enter the public arena, secular-government laws apply. Not religious laws, not conscience laws….secular-government laws. Religious groups are not forced into the public arena. Government does not compel religious groups to do charitable work for the public. They choose to do that work voluntarily.

But when Catholic groups enter the public arena…..offering health services to the general public while employing non-Catholics…..Catholic leaders insist that THEY still get to make the rules, or disobey any rules that government has imposed. That is a misguided sense of entitlement which the 1st amendment knows nothing about.

Question: Under Obama's recent health insurance plan order, are Catholics forced to buy, or use contraception?

Answer: No.

How, then, are Catholic "consciences" being "violated"?

There was yet another Republican presidential candidates debate last night conducted by ABC and Yahoo.

Here is the transcript….

Same old…same old, really. However, the topic of gay marriage came up.

Question….“Given that you oppose gay marriage, what do you want gay people to do who want to form loving, committed, long-term relationships? What is your solution?”

GINGRICH: Well, I think what I would say is that we want to make it possible to have those things that are most intimately human between friends occur. For example, you’re in a hospital. If there are visitation hours, should you be allowed to stay there? There ought to be ways to designate that.

You want to have somebody in your will. There ought to be ways to designate that. But it is a huge jump from being understanding and considerate and concerned, which we should be, to saying we therefore are going to institute the sacrament of marriage as though it has no basis.

The sacrament of marriage was based on a man and woman, has been for 3,000 years. Is at the core of our civilization. And it’s something worth protecting and upholding. And I think protecting and upholding that doesn’t mean you have to go out and make life miserable for others, but it does mean you make a distinction between a historic sacrament of enormous importance in our civilization and simply deciding it applies everywhere and it’s just a civil right.

It’s not. It is a part of how we define ourselves. And I think that a marriage between a man and a woman is part of that definition.

Definition of the word sacrament:….a visible sign of an inward grace, especially one of the solemn Christian rites considered to have been instituted by Jesus Christ to symbolize or confer grace: the sacraments of the Protestant churches are baptism and the Lord's Supper; the sacraments of the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches are baptism, confirmation, the Eucharist, matrimony, penance, holy orders, and extreme unction.

Gingrich is seeking the office of the presidency of a nation which governs itself, at least theoretically, on the dictates of the Constitution. The separation of religion and state is part and parcel of the laws governing our secular state. The first amendment grants freedom to all U.S. citizens to practice any form of religion they so desire without governemntal restrictions and/or interference…and the first amendment also guarantees citizens freedom from governmental "establishment" of religion. Not one or the other….both, simultaneously.

Newt Gingrich, clearly, would use the power of the government to "establish" the "sacrament" of marriage as the sole entitlement of heterosexual couples. As far as our government is concerned, establishing laws for religious sacramental reasons is entirely lawless….and yet that's what Newt Gingrich plans on doing should he be elected president.

Because of the constant drumbeat from the right that America is a "Christian nation" and that evil and hellbound liberals are out to destroy Christianity…..while assisting Muslims in setting up their worldwide Caliphate to destroy America…..we need some clarity on this issue.

Newt Gingrich helps us out with that clarity…..from last night's debate….

GINGRICH: I just want to raise — since we’ve spent this much time on these issues — I just want to raise a point about the news media bias. You don’t hear the opposite question asked. Should the Catholic Church be forced to close its adoption services in Massachusetts because it won’t accept gay couples, which is exactly what the state has done? Should the Catholic Church be driven out of providing charitable services in the District of Columbia because it won’t give in to secular bigotry? Should the Catholic Church find itself discriminated against by the Obama administration on key delivery of services because of the bias and the bigotry of the administration?

The bigotry question goes both ways. And there’s a lot more anti-Christian bigotry today than there is concerning the other side. And none of it gets covered by the news media.

These are the words of a man who believes that Christians and Christian groups are "entitled" in ways that no other groups are entitled. In Newt's entirely phony answer, he conveniently leaves out the part where the Catholic Church takes federal tax dollars. The Catholic Church takes federal tax dollars to assist in their adoption services as well as other charitable services to the poor and needy.

Gingrich knows that when a religious group takes federal money they are bound to obey all federal laws with the use of that money. Part of the federal laws the Church is bound to obey, when taking tax dollars, (also known as federal welfare) is discrimination laws. But that's the exact issue that Gingrich says the Church is "entitled" to disobey. Gingrich is telling Americans that Christians and Christian groups stand outside our national system of secular laws. They, alone, deserve entitlements that others never qualify for. In this case, the Church is especially entitled to willfully violate federal discrimination laws WHILE also sucking at the secular government teat.

Why? Apparently, because the Church is in charge of "sacraments"…..and those "sacraments" are based on a higher authority than our nation's Constitution and rule of law.

Gingrich's words are the words of a person seeking higher religious office….not the presidency of the most powerful secular country on earth. They are the words of a bigot who justifies his bigotry by insisting (wrongly) that the Church, because it controls the keys to the "sacraments", the holy things, is entitled to violate federal law with immunity.

The Christian Church is not being persecuted and/or singled out for special governmental punishment, as theocons tell us. Instead, many Christians and Christian Churchs have simply grown accustomed to a misplaced sense of entitlement.

As I mentioned the other day, the Iowa GOP caucuses are not representative of the larger, American electorate….and that's actually a good thing. Last night Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum ended in a dead heat for first place in the Iowa GOP caucuses. Romney received 30,015 caucus votes (24.6%)….Santorum with 30,007 votes (24.5%)…Ron Paul took in 26,219 votes (21.4%).

Iowa conservatives, apparently, have not settled on a presidential candidate. In winning by a photo finish, Romney received the lowest percentage of Iowa caucus votes since Bob Dole took 26% of the Iowa primary in 1996. As you may remember…Dole went on to take a thorough asskicking at the hands of incumbent president Bill Clinton that year.

I think it's safe to say that Republican voters are all over the board this election cycle. Not united…would be another way of saying it. As we've seen, Mitt Romney is not trusted by conservative voters to be an authentic conservative. Even though Romney is seen by many as the most electable candidate Republicans have to offer, his openness to compromise, his "liberal" past, and his Mormonism make him less than palatable to about half of conservative voters.

That explains the Keystone Kop Klown Kar parade we've been witnessing for almost a year now. Trump, Bachmann, Perry, Cain, and Gingrich…each getting their turn driving the other Klowns around on their way to the first primaries. Conservative voter dissatisfaction with Romney is also seen in the pitifully desperate cries for the obese, bigmouth Chris Christie and/or W's brother Jebby to jump into the GOP race.

Anyway, now it's Rick Santorum's turn behind the wheel. Santorum is the guy who, in 2006, lost his senate seat to fellow Pennsylvania Democrat Bob Casey….by 19%. Nevertheless, Santorum worked hard in Iowa. His hard work paid off. Good on him. Santorum will not be the GOP candidate this fall…you can bet on that…but Santorum's strong finish last night again illustrates the divisions within what's left of the conservative movement in America.

Yesterday I pointed out Santorum's apparent problem with "blacks" and government assistance. Today,I would like to point out Rick Santorum's problem with modernity in general. In October, Santorum told Shane Vander Hart, editor of CaffeinatedThoughts.com….

“One of the things I will talk about, that no president has talked about before, is I think the dangers of contraception in this country,” the former Pennsylvania senator explained. “It’s not okay. It’s a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.”

Contraception? Really?

Santorum is seen as the social conservative in the race. Social conservatives make up a large percentage of Republican voters. Social conservatives say that their most important issue is ending abortion rights in America. The best way for sexually active women to avoid unwanted pregnancies is…..wait for it…..contraception. Yet, Rick Santorum, social conservative darling, claims that contraception is dangerous.

Why is contraception dangerous according to Santorum? "It's a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be."

Contraception availability….and the choice women still have to determine their reproductive futures….runs "counter to how things are supposed to be."

This is the guy who basically tied Mitt Romney for first place last night in the Iowa GOP caucuses.

Just as I appreciated Santorum's honesty when he talked about how he, and many other conservatives, saw "blacks"…so too, I appreciate Santorum's honesty about contraception. For forever I've thought that the anti-choice movement in America was more about anti-women sexuality than anything else. In Santorum's recent remarks about contraception, he only confirms what I've always thought.

Access to abortion and contraception is understood by many social conservatives as a "license" to have sex. What's wrong with sex, you ask. Nothing, as long as sex is conducted the way "things are supposed to be." Which to Santorum means: only within the parameters of marriage….

SANTORUM: [Sex] is supposed to be within marriage. It’s supposed to be for purposes that are yes, conjugal…but also procreative. That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen…This is special and it needs to be seen as special.

Santorum's view is a religious view….based on religious teachings. In secular America we do not organize our society or our laws based on religious views. Santorum, and his fellow social conservatives, may think that sex outside of marriage, and not for the purpose of procreation, are not how "things are supposed to be"….but that train left the station a very long time ago….and it ain't coming back.

99 percent of women 15-44 in America have used at least one contraception method.

Remember the conservative drooling over defunding Planned Parenthood? Santorum's thinking on this matter helps to explain why. According to social conservatives like Santorum, if women have access to contraception and abortion, then they will consider that access as a license to be, I guess, slutty and promiscuous. And that is just not how "things are supposed to be."

For a long time I have been saying that the anti-abortion and anti-contraception movement has nothing to do with fetuses and "life"….but rather an unhealthy authoritarian attitude towards sexually active women. More than anything, anti-choicers are anti-women. Santorum represents a dying breed of outdated culture warriors who still want to keep women in the kitchen….pregnant. It's god's way…they tell us.

Along with Ohio's SB5 referendum vote in Ohio today…..is Mississippi's referendum vote on "fetal personhood." Voters in Mississippi today will be deciding whether they believe all fertilized human eggs are, in fact, "persons"…and thus entitled to all the protections guaranteed to all other U.S."persons."

Of course, this Mississippi referendum has nothing to do with granting personhood rights to fertilized human eggs…it has to do with denying all Mississippi women the right to choose their own reproductive lives. Ending abortion….that's what the poor southern state is putting to a vote today.

As with Ohio's Issue 3, if Mississippian's "personhood" referendum passes, it will not become the law of the United States and, most likely, will not become effective law even in Mississippi because of the court battles which will surely follow. But that could be the goal of radicalized forced-pregnancy conservatives in Mississippi. Even though Roe v Wade forces no female citizen to choose abortion, forced-pregnancy enthusiasts in Mississippi would force all pregnant women, whether they wanted to bear a child or not, to have no other choice.

To stimulate a bit of discussion on the "forced pregnancy" movement in Mississippi….I encourage you to read this short piece.

Hullabaloo's David Atkins sets forward 4 group-think examples which seek to encompass where the "passion" behind the forced pregnancy lobby comes from..

1) A small minority of the forced pregnancy movement are….

..seriously hardcore misogynists who want women to be little more than vessels to carry babies. This is actually a fairly small minority of the movement, but these are the folks who are against not only abortion, but birth control and abortion even in cases of rape or incest. These people would still be branding women with scarlet letters if they had the chance. The abortion issue isn't about babies for them. It's about controlling women and sexuality.

2) Pregnancy as punishment for having sex….a variation on #1…

The pro-punishment crowd that sees sex as inherently evil and carries around a softer version of the first group's misogyny.

3) The Christian conservatives who actually believe a god breathes a soul into every fertilized human egg at…fertilization.

The actual Bible-thumper crowd. A lot of these people obviously overlap with groups 1 and 2, but there is a segment of people who are legitimately convinced that all these little eggs and fetuses are imbued with a soul by the magic Creator, and that there is an unsung massacre ongoing everyday on a par with the Nazi Holocaust.

4) Those who are only following their leaders or role model figures…

…follow along with whatever their "pro-life" pastor, youth group leader or similar charlatan says is the right thing to believe. They don't have strong convictions about these things, but everyone else in their social group seems to have anti-choice beliefs, so they might as well, too.

Atkins goes on to explain what science has to say about this "a fertilized human egg is a person" issue….remember science?

This is what we know: During the period of embryonic development that begins with fertilization and ends with successful implantation, about 50 percent of human conceptions fail to survive. The main reason for this high failure rate is the inability of huge numbers of fertilized eggs to implant.

Either "god" is…well….similar to Hitler…or perhaps a fertilized human egg alone….does not qualify as a person.

Mississippi Governor Barbour has already voiced some concerns about the state's forced pregnancy referendum,….and he's certainly no liberal. Other conservatives have as well.

Let's hope voters in Mississippi pause to reflect on what they are really voting for…..they are voting to force women, against their legal will, to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.

Bryan Fischer is the American Family Association guy who recently said that Mitt Romney was not a Christian. Romney's a Mormon. And Mormons, according to Fischer, are not Christians. Instead, Mormons are cult members. Which is meant to sound scary….but really isn't, because all religious groups are cults….all of them.

Seems that Bryan Fischer heard a CNN anchor ask a question whether or not Jesus, the Christian cult messiah, would Occupy Wall Street. Would Jesus, the friend of the poor, the vulnerable, the accused and the sick….would Jesus understand and agree with today's American and world citizens who are Occupying Wall Street…and would he join with the thousands of protesters who are protesting the gaming of America, and the world economy, by the financial industry? In short: would Jesus be on the side of the 99%?

Fischer's answer to that question is found here…and I encourage readers to read his explanation in it's entirety. But because this is only a sermonette and not a sermon…The Reverend will only deal with this part of Fischer's take…

Jesus took a whip to the thieves and the covetous in his day. If he were to come back and do the same thing today, he just might start in Zuccotti Park.

Fischer clearly equates the ancient Jewish Temple money changers with the thousands of protesters of Wall Street today. Fischer, it's worth noting, doesn't equate who I call Wall Street "banksters" with the Jewish money-changers of old. To Fischer, the young protesters at Zuccoti Park are the money-changers who riled up the messiah.

John 2: 14-16

And he found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: and he made a scourge of cords, and cast all out of the temple, both the sheep and the oxen; and he poured out the changers' money, and overthrew their tables; and to them that sold the doves he said, Take these things hence; make not my Father's house a house of merchandise.

"Changers of money". The money changers. Jewish pilgrims would make their way to the Temple on high holy days and bring their animal offerings with them to the Temple. Sins could not be forgiven by Jehovah without blood sacrifices.

Certain Jewish skimmers had made a for-profit industry out of these pilgrimages. Because everyone's animal offerings could not physically be offered up as burnt offerings in the vicinity of the Temple, the skimmers forced pilgrims into a transaction. Penitents had to exchange their animal offerings for "Temple money." Then, the "Temple money" could be offered to Jehovah inside the Temple.

Naturally, with a captive marketplace, these Jewish skimmers couldn't resist the temptation to rip off pilgrims through various and sundry exchange-rate schemes. It was common knowledge among the non-rich and non-clergy of those times that religious associates conducting the money changing outside the Temple in Jerusalem…were evil thieves exploiting the common Jewish worshipers every chance they could get. The Temple Courtyard had become a "profit-center."

Now, let me ask readers….of the two….Occupy Wall Street protesters, and Wall Street players themselves….who most resembles the money-changers who operated their skimmer profit-centers in the Courtyard of the Jerusalem Temple?

Within the answer….is the lesson.

Recently, Israel did something America does not do….negotiated with people they consider to be "terrorists"…..

Gilad Shalit, the Israeli sergeant who was held captive for five years by the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, was released early this morning and handed over to Egyptian officals, reports said.

While there was no immediate confirmation by Israeli officals, the move appeared to be the beginning of a stunning prisoner swap in which Israel agreed to free 1,027 violent Palestinian inmates in exchange for Shalit.

Often, I have been accused of siding with the "terrorists" in the decades-long dispute between nuclear-armed Israel and, basically, unarmed Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. Simply pointing out that Israel's U.S. equipped military murdered unarmed protesters, including a U.S citizen, on the Turk humanitarian flotilla at pointblank range…or explaining that Israeli helicopter gunships massacred some 600 Palestinian women and children in December before Obama was inaugurated……draws cries of anti-semitism and Israel-bashing from most conservatives critics.

Since 9-11, Muslims have been described repeatedly by American conservatives as medieval savages intent on eliminating all Jews…and then taking over the world. In America today, the word "terrorist" now only applies to Muslims. If a non-Muslim plots or commits a horrendous act of violence, one which is as violent as anything a Muslim jihadist has done…..American corporate media never labels that person a "terrorist."

The reason? Muslims are the "terrorists." No one else.

From the national hysteria over opening an Islamic Center a few blocks from Ground Zero, to the constant drumbeat over the non-existent imposition of "sharia" law, to the totally embarrassing "Muslim radicalization" congressional hearings held by Peter King (R-NY), to the new unconstitutional power of an American president to order the assassination of a Muslim U.S. citizen without due process…..the U.S. messaging has been clear. Muslims are savages bent on taking over the whole world while killing as many westerners as possible in the process. Muslims hate all non-Muslims with a bottomless hate. And it is this unexplainable hatred that Muslims have for western "freedom" which makes them different from all other religions or nations.

I've said all that in order to show you something which is particularly vile. Upon the release of Israeli Sergeant Shalit, this was written….

He’s free and he’s home in the bosom of his family and his country.

Celebrate, Israel, with all the joyous gratitude that fills your hearts, as we all do along with you.

Then round up his captors, the slaughtering, death-worshiping, innocent-butchering, child-sacrificing savages who dip their hands in blood and use women—those who aren’t strapping bombs to their own devils’ spawn and sending them out to meet their seventy-two virgins by taking the lives of the school-bus-riding, heart-drawing, Transformer-doodling, homework-losing children of Others—and their offspring—those who haven’t already been pimped out by their mothers to the murder god—as shields, hiding behind their burkas and cradles like the unmanned animals they are, and throw them not into your prisons, where they can bide until they’re traded by the thousands for another child of Israel, but into the sea, to float there, food for sharks, stargazers, and whatever other oceanic carnivores God has put there for the purpose.

That is what genocidal hatred looks like. As Glenn Greenwald puts it,…

"I generally avoid as unproductive Nazi comparisons in politics — especially when it comes to the Middle East – but if this isn’t a pure expression of the Nazi mindset of hatred, bigotry, dehumanization, and yearnings for genocidal extermination, then nothing is."

The shocking, or not, part of this is who wrote those vile words. They were blogged by Rachel Abrams. Who is Rachel Abrams?

Rachel Abrams is the wife of Reagan and Bush 43 neocon official Elliot Abrams, the daughter of Midge Decter and step-daughter of Norman Podhoretz, as well as a member of the Board of Directors of the “Emergency Committee for Israel,” the group founded by Bill Kristol and run by Noah Pollack to attack any American politician displaying less than absolute fealty toward Israel.

In other words…

This isn’t from some fringe Arab-hating figure but from the heart and soul of the American neocon movement.

Elliot Abrams, Bill Kristol and Norman Podhoretz are as neo-connish as neo-cons can be. Bill Kristol is the modern father-figure for neo-conservatism….a philosophy which brought us the criminal attack of Iraq….a philosophy which is leading the U.S. into attacking Iran….a philosophy which hinders any two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute…a philosophy which sets forward the proposition that America in the 21st century should exploit the ending of the Cold War by controlling the middle east, through whatever unilateral military means we determine.

However, as you can see from Mrs. Abrams blog post…..savage, vile, genocidal hatred towards Muslims also motivates these neo-cons.

Naturally though, it is only the world's Muslims who hate so bitterly and fiendishly….because Muslims, you know, are the "terrorists."

There was a lot of talk over the weekend about former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney's Mormon religion.

This past weekend brought us the Value Voters Summit in D.C. The gathering is organized and run by mostly far right, conservative evangelical Christian leaders. The Summit's straw vote went to Ron Paul….but the hubbub from the weekend was the bold statement by "Megachurch pastor and Rick Perry supporter Robert Jeffress."

..he (Jeffress) said Mitt Romney was not a real Christian. He added that if Republicans vote for him they are giving credibility to a cult and declared that evangelicals should not support a Mormon.

“I think Mitt Romney is a good, moral man,” Jeffress said in an interview with CNN. “But I think those of us who are born-again followers of Christ should always prefer a competent Christian to a competent non-Christian like Mitt Romney.”

If you recall, I have already explained that evangelical Christians are going to have a very difficult time voting for Mitt Romney for president because of his Mormonism. In the 2008 presidential election, evangelical Christians made up 23% of the total voting electorate and 44% of GOP voters.

Almost half of GOP voters in 2008 were evangelical Christians. As Pastor Jeffress made clear this weekend, evangelicals are being urged to not vote for Mitt Romney because Mormonism is a cult and Mormon members are "non-Christians." Therein lies the problem for Mitt Romney as he pursues the presidency.

According to evangelical Christians, Mormonism is a "cult." Sounds ominous.

But, what is a cult?

a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies.

This may come as a surprise to some, but Christianity, itself, is a cult…..and is referred to as such by biblical and theological scholars. Christianity, especially as expressed before the Reformation and continued through the worldwide Roman Catholic Church afterwards, has a "particular system of religious worship" with it's own "rites and ceremonies." The Mass…the administering of the "sacraments" through the special priesthood, the statues, the vestments, the incense, the bellringing, the sharing of the "Host"…..make up a "particular system of religious worship" with it's own unique "rites and ceremonies."

And indeed, many evangelical Christians (example:Rev.John Hagee) consider Roman Catholicism to be a "cult" of non-Christians…..but in a slightly different way than Mormonism is regarded as a "cult." When you get into the world of invisible god-beings…it really gets complicated.

To Pastor Jeffress, who addressed the Value Voters Summit crowd…..Mitt Romney may be "competent", but alas, he is a non-Christian because he is a member of the Mormon cult. And although Mitt Romney is a "good, moral person", according to Jeffress…..he isn't a "born-again follower of the Lord Jesus Christ."

Because Romney is a non-Christian member of what evangelical born-agains consider a cult group….and not a true "born-again follower of the Lord Jesus Christ"….evangelical voters at the Value Voters Summit were encouraged by Pastor Jeffress to vote for a true born-again Christian candidate, Governor Rick Perry….and not Mitt Romney, the Mormon cultist. Ron Paul won the straw poll vote. Go figure.

So, what do we have here?

Pastor Jeffress and Mitt Romney both claim to believe deeply in invisible god-beings. Despite the man-written Book of Mormon and the man-written Bible…..no one in human history has ever seen, heard from, or spoken to any invisible god-beings. Pastor Jeffress and like-minded evangelical Christians have never seen, heard from, or spoken to "the Lord Jesus Christ"….and neither has Mitt Romney.

Yet, the sanctimonious Pastor Jeffress has the audacity to claim that the invisible god-being whom Mitt Romney believes in…is not really the authentic and genuine invisible god-being whom he and fellow "born agains" believe in….and because of THAT…..fellow "born again" voters, who also pledge their faith and loyalty to invisible god-beings…plural in the invisible Trinity, but singular in the One invisible god….should not vote for the non-Christian, Mitt Romney.

Those evangelical Christians have "values" to uphold, you understand.

Our Constitution prohibits any religious test to qualify for elected office…..but to evangelical Value Voters….a religious test for the U.S. presidency is essential. The reason? Because the invisible god-being(s) whom evangelicals believe in are far superior to the invisible god-beings Mormons believe in.

It's a good thing that modern America has moved so far away from the days of our superstitious Puritan roots, isn't it?

DougJ at Balloon Juice.com, discussing Rick Perry's anti-science march to the GOP presidential candidacy….

But if Perry wins the Republican nomination partly by being more anti-science than Romney—and I suspect that he will—then one way or another Paul Krugman is probably right:

"[T]he odds are that one of these years the world’s greatest nation will find itself ruled by a party that is aggressively anti-science, indeed anti-knowledge."

The anti-science stuff may be half-hearted but when you say things for long enough, you start to believe them. I see the Republican base getting more and more Medieval on all of our asses and I see the media going along with all of it in the interest of fairness and balance.

That is exactly right. And truth be told….it's a scary proposition. Some superstitious numbnutz with access to the silo codes.

But Krugman was actually talking about what GOP presidential candidate Jon Huntsman said about his own party. Here's what Huntsman said….

"The minute that the Republican Party becomes the party — the anti-science party, we have a huge problem," Huntsman told ABC News Senior White House correspondent Jake Tapper. "We lose a whole lot of people who would otherwise allow us to win the election in 2012."

"When we take a position that isn't willing to embrace evolution, when we take a position that basically runs counter to what 98 of 100 climate scientists have said … about what is causing climate change and man's contribution to it, I think we find ourselves on the wrong side of science, and, therefore, in a losing position," Huntsman added.

Finally, a Republican who tells the truth about climate science. Huntsman corrects the totally bogus Foxian spin put on global climate change by simply stating the facts. 98% of climate scientists have concluded that man is contributing to the greenhouse effect. Huntsman, apparently, doesn't accept the childish "ClimateGate" gotcha wingnuttery about scientists being in some secretive cabal of information manipulation so's they could all continue to get them, you know, socialistic grants from government and corporations and stuff. Boneheads.

Here's what Perry calls global climate change…

"a scientific theory that has not been proven and from my perspective is more and more being put into question" while claiming scientists have "manipulated data" on the issue.

Rick Perry on evolution….

It's a theory that's out there. It's got some gaps in it.

America does not want a president who is so easily caught up in mystical explanations of how the world works. It would be like electing a soothsayer, a medium, an astrologist to the White House. Jon Huntsman's concerns about his Republican Party are warranted. The conservative movement has pushed so far to the right in the last few years in their attempt to stifle any progressive initiatives…..that their frontrunner for the presidency today is an evolution-denying, young-earth-believing, Creationist and a global climate change denier.

Is the image that conservatives want to portray for America one of hickdom? Ignorance? Will America be stronger with a president who denies science…will America be well served if we have a president who chooses to rely on prayer instead of scientific consensus?

Independents and moderates need to keep this stuff in mind as we move closer to November, 2012. The drivers of today's Republican Party are something straight out of the medieval age. Science is anti-god, so science cannot be trusted. Scientists can't be trusted because they try to explain away god. And scientists are mainly, you know, liberal, critical thinkers….and that's not good.

Rick Perry is one of these guys who says he doesn't trust science. He believes that the fossil record, carbon dating, and all geological and biological evidence which verifies evolution and a multiple billion year old planet are all just theories. Take 'em or leave 'em….just theories that are, you know, "out there". If mystical nonsense and fairy tales are preferred by Governor Perry over mainstream science, what kind of decisions would he make as president?

Krugman is probably right….eventually, with the back and forth of our two party system being what it is….we will most likely vote in a medievalist Republican to the presidency some day. American conservatism moves closer to a mystical comprehension of reality every day…and so it just seems inevitable that in one of our four year election cycles….a Republican who would be more comfortable in the days of Galileo's prosecution, will sit in the Oval Office.

Eventually…maybe….but not in 2012…and not Rick Perry.

In April, I reported on the polling of Texas Republicans revealing that 51% of Texas GOP'ers agreed with Governor Rick Perry that "Texas may need to leave the United States."

Just a reminder of what type of conservatives we're dealing with down in the Looney Star State.

From April of this year also came Governor Perry's official "Proclamation for Days of Prayer for Rain in Texas."

WHEREAS, throughout our history, both as a state and as individuals, Texans have been strengthened, assured and lifted up through prayer; it seems right and fitting that the people of Texas should join together in prayer to humbly seek an end to this devastating drought and these dangerous wildfires;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, RICK PERRY, Governor of Texas, under the authority vested in me by the Constitution and Statutes of the State of Texas, do hereby proclaim the three-day period from Friday, April 22, 2011, to Sunday, April 24, 2011, as Days of Prayer for Rain in the State of Texas.

Apparently, the governor's pray-for-rain days didn't take, or god was sleeping, vacationing, or something….because the Texas drought continues.

From an interview Perry did with the Christian Broadcasting Network…here's another of the Governor's prayer requests….

“Frankly I pray for the president every day. I pray for his wisdom, I pray that God will open his eyes. I wish this president would turn back the health care law that’s been passed, ask that his EPA back down these regulations that are causing businesses to hesitate to spend money.”

Praying for rain, praying for a conversion of President Obama so he will rescind his Affordable Care Act and gut the Environmental Protection Agency, you know, while he's at it.

Rick Perry is quite the praying governor…..a week ago Saturday in Houston, 30,000 attendees at Governor Perry's "The Response, a call to prayer for a nation in crisis" heard the praying governor pray this way….

"Lord, You are the source of every good thing, You are our only hope. And we stand before You today in awe of your power, and in gratitude for Your blessings; in humility for our sins.

Father, our heart breaks for America. We see discord at home. We see fear in the marketplace. We see anger in the halls of government. And as a nation we have forgotten Who made us, Who protects us, Who blesses us, and for that we cry out for Your forgiveness…."

I know a bit about public prayer. Evangelical preachers and leaders, not exclusively mind you, often enjoy public prayer because it's an opportunity to sermonize. In Perry's case, praying publicly is an opportunity to sermonize politically. Under the sanctimonious cover of public prayer, politicians, like Perry, corrupt the very nature of prayer by putting words in god's mouth, as it were,….or confuse partisan political (and corporate) requests with, you know, god's will.

As the Bible, which Gov. Perry so highly praises, says…..this type of prayer is not only offensive to god, but it actually brings god's condemnation down on the one doing the public praying. Why…it's as if god doesn't particularly appreciate grandiose displays of pious religiosity.

"…for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased.."

But, then, Governor Perry doesn't put his faith in what god says or does, anyway. Perry puts his full faith in large corporate political donations….

Perry has received a total of $37 million over the last decade from just 150 individuals and couples, who are likely to form the backbone of his new effort to win the Republican presidential nomination. The tally represented more than a third of the $102 million he had raised as governor through December, according to data compiled by the watchdog group Texans for Public Justice.

Nearly half of those mega-donors received hefty business contracts, tax breaks or appointments under Perry, according to a Los Angeles Times analysis.

Which naturally leads me to what it is Governor Rick Perry is really doing when he calls for special prayer days and when he publicly sermonizes while claiming to be praying.

He's preying.

Perry, like many a politician before him, has been preying on the religious faith of Christian evangelicals in order to round up enough votes to win public office….all in order to reward those few rich corporate buddies of his who paid to get him elected in the first place.

This preying GOP Governor Dawg simply isn't going to hunt….if you get my drift. Like Donald Trump…I predict that Perry will be yet another candidate-du-jour for the extremist right to get all excited over for a few weeks and then fizzle out in some clustermess of freakishness.

But if I'm wrong….and the GOP's plan to destroy the economy in order to remove Obama is successful…and Perry, somehow, becomes the American president…..300 million Americans, many who don't even believe in god, will be praying without ceasing.