Fundy Magic: Quotes Ahoy!

I caught this via Overcompensating, and it was too good not to share.  Here’s a few choice quotes:

No, everyone is born Christian. Only later in life do people choose to stray from Jesus and worship satan instead. Atheists have the greatest “cover” of all, they insist they believe in no god yet most polls done and the latest research indicates that they are actually a different sect of Muslims.

Trinidad and Tobago, CARM [Comments (260)] [2006-Oct-01]

[about a girl being born with mental disabilities]

This girl is like a leper so what she needs to do is try and find god

if she really believes she can be healed from this state, she will be healed from this state

Most afflictions like this are caused by sins committed while still inside the womb. If she can repent for what she does god will embrace her and make her as human as you or me but if she chooses not to she’ll always be like this

god tests every one of us [emphasis added]

theSAVED, Penny Arcade [Comments (175)] [2007-Jan-14]

There are a lot of things I have concluded to be wrong, without studying them in-depth. Evolution is one of them. The fact that I don’t know that much about it does not bother me in the least.

AV1611VET, Christian Forums [Comments (91)] [2006-Sep-12]

I often debate with evolutionists because I believe that they are narrow mindedly and dogmatically accepting evolution without questioning it. I don’t really care how God did what He did. I know He did it.

TexasSky, Christian Forums [Comments (65)] [2006-Aug-24]

[on the sunject of a Bible printing company]

Yes, that is a great company. I bought one of their large print version (old eyes… what can I say?).

The only thing I don’t like about them is they sell foreign language versions of the KJB. I don’t think that’s right. We know the only true translation is the 1600’s version in English.

It’s too risky for anybody to translate that into other languages. Mistakes can creep in… and that can lead to heresy. True Christians should only read English.

leyenda , KJB only [Comments (114)] [2007-Aug-06]

If u have sex before marriage then in Gods eyes u are married to that person if a man rapes a woman in Gods eyes they are married it sucks for the girl but what can we do lol

Gods soldier, Myspace [Comments (149)] [2006-Feb-03]

[One Christian speaking to another]

You are banned. You are not a Christian for Christians don’t accuse brothers and sisters in Christ of being non-Christian.

Troy, Bibliocality [Comments (1041)] [2006-Feb-07]

Me and like-minded Christian students are trying to organize a mock stoning of openly gay students at our campus. We will be using crumpled up gray/brown construction paper to represent rocks, and will recite bible verses in opposition to their sinful nature. We will throw a volley or two of these “rocks” at every Gay person we happen to encounter that day.

Rebelscum954, CARM [Comments (121)] [2007-Sep-12]

Charming.

Advertisements

Huckabee Bible Constitution Jamboree

huckabee.jpg

Hooooooooooo-eeeeeee!

Pam Spaulding at Pandagon writes:

This man doesn’t need to be anywhere near the White House. His Christian Reconstructionism slip shows again, this time in Michigan.

“[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it’s a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that’s what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards,” Huckabee said, referring to the need for a constitutional human life amendment and an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

Huckabee often refers to the need to amend the constitution on these grounds, but he has never so specifically called for the Constitution to be brought within “God’s standards,” which are themselves debated amongst religious scholars. As a closing statement he asked the room of nearly 500 supporters to “pray and then work hard, and in that order,” to help him secure a victory in Tuesday’s GOP primary.

Mike Huckabee is running as a Theocrat:

Jon Perr of Perrspectives had this to say:

In case there was any remaining doubt, that astounding statement eviscerated Huckabee’s pretense of upholding the separation of church and state. In December, Governor Huckabee offered this charade on Meet the Press, words which obviously are no longer operative:

“The key issue of real faith is that it never can be forced on someone. And never would I want to use the government institutions to impose mine or anybody else’s faith or to restrict.”

As it turns out, using the institutions of government to impose his faith is exactly what Mike Huckabee has in mind. Quick to denounce sharia law and “Islamofascism,” Huckabee is seems quite eager to embrace a Christian version of God’s law here at home.

The core of his campaign is making this a Christian Nation run by Christian law.  And at every opportunity in front of the press he denies it, he lies about it.  But at every opportunity he hints at it.

What frightens me, badly, is that this guy won Iowa, and hasn’t gotten less than 1% in every primary since.  His sympathetic coverage in the media angers me.

Here’s a fun thought experiment.  Inspired by Sara Robinson’s translation of sexist Chris Matthews statements into racist ones.  Imagine Huckabee was running as a Muslim.  (Warning, do not attempt if you are a Republican wingnut, and you use words like “islamofascist” on a daily basis.  Your head may form a black hole).

A Mike Huckabee Presidency would be a disaster, and the constitution would be just one of many victims.

Sexual Violence: Candidates and the Media

Dear Presidential Candidates:

Why aren’t you talking about rape? (Bob Herbert in the NYTimes via Feministing):

The sexual mistreatment of women in the military is widespread. The Defense Department financed a study in 2003 of female veterans seeking health assistance from the Department of Veterans Affairs. Nearly a third of those surveyed said they had been the victim of a rape or attempted rape during their service.

That was in 2003.  You all support the troops, right?  Are you including Rape survivors when you say that?  How will you help?

Of note, only two candidates have a specific issues section dedicated to women.  Hillary Clinton and John Edwards.  Of the two, only Edwards’ mentions violence against women:

Ending Violence Against Women

Achieving full equal rights for women includes the right to be free of violence everywhere. Edwards supports efforts to fully fund the Violence Against Women Act, which provides resources for crisis centers, domestic violence shelters and continuing education to law enforcement and the courts. Edwards will also aggressively support political and economic rights for women where they do not exist and supports efforts to reduce violence against women and children around the world.

To our conglomerated media companies:

Why do you treat cases of Rape, Abuse and Murder as crime thrillers?  (Feministing):

What (shockingly) seems to be missing from the coverage of both of these cases is a discussion of violence against women. In Henry’s case, it’s been difficult to find a lot news coverage at all about her disappearance–wonder why that is. In the coverage of Lauterbach’s murder, we’ve heard nary a word on violence against pregnant women, sexual assault in the military or the silencing of rape survivors.

We have an important opportunity to make problem of gender based violence a top issue now, and one we commit to fight.  To do this we need awareness and we need fighters.  We need the media to step up to their social responsibility and take a clear eyed and hard look at their own reporting, and politicians who are willing to both talk about the issues, and take immediate action.  And both need to keep the other honest.  We need politicians who will take the media to task for their coverage, and news organizations that will bring this up at news conferences and debates.

And candidates, if you’re listening, you don’t need to be elected to start.  Start now.  In the debates, in your campaign stops: make this your fight.

Texas: Making Education a Joke

These days we expect the anti-intellectual movement known as creationism to rear its head wearing “Intelligent Design” as a flimsy disguise.  Not in Texas!  Tony’s curricublog:

Would Texas state approval of the creationists’ masters degree program in “Science Education” jeopardize its satisfaction of the NCLB requirement for a “Highly Qualified Teacher” in every classroom, and its reciprocity arrangements for teacher qualification in other states?

In an editorial for the Edmond (OK) Sun, with the headline Knowing difference between science, religion important in schools, Dennis Weigand warns against the danger of Oklahoma being plagued by the kind of anti-science-education efforts seen now and recently in the neighboring states of Kansas and Texas.

This will have serious and lasting impact on Texans, and unfortunately, the rest of us when they move to other states and start doing things like voting or speaking out loud.

what if it’s not just Texas students, but the science teachers in that state who are not well enough educated in the sciences that they can tell the “the difference between science and religion”?

What we have here is an attempt to kill the ability of some students to reason.  Reason, in the view of some religious proponents, must be restricted so as not to approach the pearly gates of faith.  “Keep your Reason off my Bible” might as well become the new slogan for the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board.  To see specifically what the approved program will be:

to get a good overview of the program without clicking through the pages on their site, you can visit this post on Ed Darrell’s blog.

This is ridiculous.  It is an assault on the quality of education provided by the state, separation of church and state, and the ability of Texas students to live and flourish in a world that runs on science.

I wonder what Mike Huckabee’s or Ron Paul’s take on this would be?  (For more on creationism, evolution, and the candidates: the Carpetbagger Report).

Understanding nazis, Fascism and Socialism

Some readers aren’t on the same page when it comes to nazis. Not even the same book.

Its an irritating trick of the right to claim someone like Hillary Clinton is a socialist, or claim the nazis were socialists because they had the word socialist in their name. These claims are all demonstrably false, and I’d like to take a moment and explain why.

I’ll be referring to David Neiwert’s appendix on fascism. Folks who already understand these matters may want to bookmark it anyway for reference. Its excellent.

Let’s start with some words from George Orwell:

Fascism, at any rate the German version, is a form of capitalism that borrows from Socialism just such features as will make it efficient for war purposes.

But the idea underlying Fascism is irreconcilably different from that which underlies Socialism. Socialism aims, ultimately, at a world-state of free and equal human beings. It takes the equality of human rights for granted. Nazism assumes just the opposite. The driving force behind the Nazi movement is the belief in human inequality, the superiority of Germans to all other races, the right of Germany to rule the world. Outside the German Reich it does not recognise any obligations.

From just that section, we can show why each wingnut claim is decidedly false.  Let’s start with the nazis were socialists.  Socialism is about equality.  It is a complete equality, that recognizes that economic inequality is still (shocker!) inequality.  However every other form of equality is also at play.  So a violent and racist regime like the nazis cannot possibly be socialist.

Next, the claim that Hillary is a socialist.  No, she isn’t.  Hillary Clinton supported the war in Iraq.  She doesn’t support universal health care.  She doesn’t support state ownership and the abolition of private property.  Calling anyone to the left of Mitt Romney a socialist is simply idiotic, and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of socialism.

Let’s take a look at some other definitions of fascism:

Paxton’s nine “mobilizing passions” of fascism:

— a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond the reach of any traditional solutions;

— the primacy of the group, toward which one has duties superior to every right, whether universal or individual, and the subordination of the individual to it;

— the belief that one’s group is a victim, a sentiment which justifies any action, without legal or moral limits, against the group’s enemies, both internal and external;

— dread of the group’s decline under the corrosive effect of individualistic liberalism, class conflict, and alien influences;

— the need for closer integration of a purer community, by consent if possible, or by exclusionary violence if necessary;

— the need for authority by natural leaders (always male), culminating in a national chief who alone is capable of incarnating the group’s destiny;

— the superiority of the leader’s instincts over abstract and universal reason;

— the beauty of violence and the efficacy of will, when they are devoted to the group’s success;

— the right of the chosen people to dominate others without restraint from any kind of human or divine law, right being decided by the sole criterion of the group’s prowess in a Darwinian struggle.

As you read that list, are you thinking George Bush as much as I am?

Roger Griffin:

Fascism: modern political ideology that seeks to regenerate the social, economic, and cultural life of a country by basing it on a heightened sense of national belonging or ethnic identity. Fascism rejects liberal ideas such as freedom and individual rights, and often presses for the destruction of elections, legislatures, and other elements of democracy. Despite the idealistic goals of fascism, attempts to build fascist societies have led to wars and persecutions that caused millions of deaths. As a result, fascism is strongly associated with right-wing fanaticism, racism, totalitarianism, and violence.

This is why I make such a big deal about the immigration debate.  Every politician and pundit who screams about the impact of immigration on culture, who whines about “having to dial 1 for english” or the presence of ESL classes in the schools, who talks about any number of white supremacist conspiracy theories, is feeding into one of the core components of fascism.

Fascism is something to fight tooth and nail until it is stripped from the world.  The first step in doing so is understanding what fascism is, and how to recognize it.  A good next step is taking the time to counteract false and misleading statements that dilute the truth about fascism and leave us unable to recognize it when it tries to sneak up on us.  Keep a special eye turned on the discourse surrounding the debates.  Fascists are being sold as freedom fighters and serious politicians, while the label fascist is being slung around carelessly in the most inappropriate places.

If you want a good example of modern politicians heading towards fascism, look no further than the Republican primary field.  You’ll find plenty of examples.

US Government: No Email Privacy

Ignoring the fourth amendment is old hat for the Bush administration.  They’re getting pretty practiced, and as Bush’s term winds to a close, reckless (Slashdot):

An anonymous reader writes “National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell is currently helping to draft a new Cyber-Security Policy that could make the debate over warrantless wiretaps seem like a petty squabble. The new policy would allow the government to access to the content of any email, file transfer, or web search.”

From the article:

“Ed Giorgio, who is working with McConnell on the plan, said that would mean giving the government the autority to examine the content of any e-mail, file transfer or Web search,” author Lawrence Wright pens.

But hey, we don’t have anything to hide, right?  So why not let the government snoop through our emails?  Hell, with that logic, why not just scrap the fourth amendment?

What I don’t get is how they can keep assaulting the Constitution while remaining in office.  There is clearly intent on the part of this administration to subvert and ignore the US Constitution.  They are actively assaulting the document and the principles it stands for.  So why are we standing for it?  If a clear record of attacking our fundamental rights by undermining the law (rather than seeking to change it) isn’t an impeachable offense, it should be.

Press Ignoring FBI neo-nazi Scandal

I wrote about the FBI Hal Turner Scandal previously.  While reading one of my favorite blogs (Orcinus), I saw that Dave had written about it too.  The last line caught my eye:

This deserves to be a significant scandal. We’ll see if the press can divert its attention long enough from Britney Spears to bring it to the public’s attention.

The media on the whole appears to be ignoring this story.  This is something that deserves serious attention:

Potok also spoke with Mike German, a former undercover FBI agent whose work I once covered. “This certainly raises a whole lot of questions that need to be answered in a public forum,” he said. “There are strict rules about what an informant is allowed to do, and certainly encouraging or instigating others to commit acts of violence is far beyond what FBI agents should have their informants doing. Aside from the fact that you’re possibly encouraging someone to commit an act of violence, there¹s also the danger that you’re actually entrapping that person, which means he would get off.”

Please pass this along, write your local papers, and help seal the cracks before this story slips through.