It is amazing how some people who insist that they speak for Jesus just don't get the crucified love-and-justice advocate's message.
I had intended to dissect an Associated Press story reporting that television and diamond magnate (and Religious Right leader) Pat Robertson is calling on Christians to pray that God will remove three liberal-leaning US Supreme Court justices so that they can be replaced with conservatives. It doesn't sound as if the right-wing reverend is wishing the sitting justices harm — he reportedly wants his deity to fill their minds with thoughts of retirement.
Anyway, I was going to dig into this shameful story, but then, during my usual visit to the excellent blog Ex-Gay Watch, I found a cogent analysis of the story — and of the fundie TV evangelist and his Liberian connections. Why reinvent the wheel when my dear friend, journalist/activist Mike Airhart, does such a terrific and thorough job? Do have a read.
I have my own prayer: that good people — Christian or not, believer or not — will hope and/or pray that good sense and the spirit of "love your neighbor as yourself" ultimately will prevail. Because the teachings of Jesus bear no resemblance to the hateful piffle Robertson and his ilk spread.
Article comments
1 - Phillip Winn
I think it's pretty weird in general to pray for mind-control of anybody, but if I were given to such things, I'd pray for Pat to retire. I'm tired of the ridiculous crap that spews out of his mouth, and I wish he would just go away. Encouragingly, the majority of criticism I've seen of him over this issue has come from Christians and conservatives, which is a good sign that he's slipping even farther into irrelevancy.
Come to think of it, Lott, Santorum, Robertson, etc, were all attacked soundly by their own constituency. When are we going to see a similar response on the left? Never mind, I've already gotten my answer on a previous post.
2 - Doctor Slack
"Come to think of it, Lott, Santorum, Robertson, etc, were all attacked soundly by their own constituency. When are we going to see a similar response on the left? "
The Republicans are certainly astute at damage-control, whatever one might think of the sincerity of their sentiments. But, come to think of it, when are we going to see conservatives emerge from an egregiously childish fantasy world in which "the left" is a monolithic bloc in which no self-criticism occurs? I hope we haven't seen our answer in Phil's post here, because it needs to happen.
3 - Doctor Slack
Oops, and I just noticed that Phil snuck Santorum in there. That the same Santorum who got a public statement of support from the White House for his anti-gay comments? What part of his own constituency was he "soundly attacked by," exactly? Refresh my memory.
4 - Phillip Winn
Doc, I'm not a Republican, though I used to be one years ago. I didn't vote for Bush or any other Republican in the last election. Well, wait. Maybe one, for a local office. I used the words "conservative" and "left" with no party designations whatsoever.
You lump together all Republicans but complain that they see "the left" as a monolithic block? Does that not seem odd to you? You question (only by implication, though, nicely done) the sincerity of the complaints that managed to get Lott out of his exalted position in the Senate, dismissing them as "damage control"? Frankly, I think the whole Lott issue would have blown over within days if Republicans had not taken up the way cry against him. Even so, his comments were technically defensible but indicated a black heart, so he had to go.
Santorum received a lot of criticism from within his own party, though his comments were echoed by many among the Democrats and even by at least one of the opinions of the USSC. Mostly his comments were taken out of context, while in context his comments were defended by some. Does criticism only count if it actually results in someone losing their job?
Candidate Gephardt, on the other hand, made a statement to a group of potential voters that strongly indicated that he wishes he could override any decision of the USSC via Executive Order, and nobody on the left says, "Boo." Instead I hear defenses based on the definitions of "overcome" vs "overturn".
News flash: Nearly any statement can be defended if you work hard enough. Maybe even Pat's, though I'm not going to bother. The point is, why are people in the public eye saying such stupid things to begin with? Even if they're stupid enough to believe such things or think such things, shouldn't they have learned a long time ago to keep their thoughts to themselves?
5 - Mark Saleski
nobody on the left says "Boo" because they don't think they really have a chance in hell of winning a presidential election.
(this coming from a guy who's easily one of the most liberal posters to blogcritics)
6 - Phillip Winn
Maybe you're right, Mark. Maybe only the "party in power" needs to correct themselves when they're wrong, while the "party out of power" can say whatever they want with impunity. I hadn't considered that, but it makes some sense.
Incidentally, back to Pat, he's along in his support of Charles Taylor, too, at least among Christians. Though I think that Christianity Today must somehow be not counting Jesse Jackson, which seems odd. Oh that's right, Christianity Today foolishly thinks that only conservatives are Christians. Dopes.
7 - Doctor Slack
'You lump together all Republicans'
If you meant "constituency" in a broader sense than GOPers, my bad.
'Mostly his comments were taken out of context, while in context his comments were defended by some.'
Yep, that sounds a lot like the nature of the "sound criticism" he got from within his own party, alright. "Yeah, he probably shouldn't have said it, but in context..." And little mention from any of them, IIRC, that he explicitly endorsed the state's right to supervise the sex lives of individuals, which was much more troubling than any of the "man on dog" stuff. But maybe I missed something.
Look, what Lott got qualified as "sound criticism," and would have even if it hadn't resulted in his losing his job. What Santorum got... didn't. Now, there are reasons for that -- a huge theocratic voting base in the GOP for one -- but reasons aren't the same thing as excuses.
And hell yes, I doubt the motives coming from GOPers re: Santorum or Lott. They're members of a party that among other things has disenfranchised black voters in Florida in order to win elections and tried to stage a coup d'etat based on a sex scandal. Any benefit-of-the-doubt capital they may once have had is years gone. But at a certain point motives are neither here nor there, it's the results that count.
'Candidate Gephardt, on the other hand, made a statement to a group of potential voters that strongly indicated that he wishes he could override any decision of the USSC via Executive Order, and nobody on the left says, "Boo." '
I'll offer an alternative to Mark's theory -- AFAIK nobody on any part of the political spectrum cares about Gephardt. You may want to consider the possibility that nobody on "the left," whatever we're imagining that to be, pays attention to what he says. I know I don't.
That's not to say that American liberals of the Democratic persuasion aren't genuinely troubled by their prospects at the next election. As well they should be. But if anything, they're hyper-critical of the candidates involved and their general mealy-mouthedness.
'Instead I hear defenses based on the definitions of "overcome" vs "overturn". '
From his aide, you mean? Yeah, that's a shocker. I suppose we should judge the level of conservative self-critique by what comes out of Ari Fleischer's mouth? Ari should have been climbing the rooftops during the runup to war yelling "my boss is an incompetent liar"?
8 - Phillip Winn
Actually, Doc, the pedantic tomfoolery came from Brian Flemming when I asked on a previous Blogcritics thread when there was going to be any outcry over Gephardt's shockingly vile remarks. That's the "previous post" to which I referred in #1, my bad for not linking to it the first time.
Santorum's point as I recall it was a legal point that the state already "supervises the sex lives of individuals" in the form of various restrictions on things most reasonable people consider "wrong," and that this was a similar issue. Still, the implication drawn by some (either maliciously or honestly I'm not sure, maybe some of each) was that homosexuality is on par with bigamy, polygamy, incest or adultery, and that did get him in trouble. When he retreated behind the "legal argument" explanation but failed to apologize for the implications of his statements, he got mixed responses. Some supported him, some still criticized. As I mentioned, many people, even some self-proclaimed liberals here on Blogcritics and elsewhere, ended up asking the same question over and over, proving Santorum's point. Why is incest illegal? Why is polygamy illegal? Why is bigamy illegal? Why is adultery illegal? And so on.
I don't intend to defend Santorum, because he should have been more circumspect with his words (if he honestly was only making a legal point) or his thoughts (if he really is a bigot bent on using his power to squash others). But I tend to find myself defending people I think are being unfairly attacked no matter what there views are. That makes me really popular on some Christian websites when I defend homosexuals, or France. I'm sure you can imagine. :)
For the rest, I'll let the evasiveness, justifications and non-answers slide. I don't really care that American Democrats aren't castigating Gephardt in the least. I don't intend to see it as a general pattern over time, either, though it seems to clearly be one right now. I've got more important things to worry about than hypocrisy from a party with little power and only shallow hopes for an upcoming election.
Once they get back on their feet again, maybe after 2004, I hope for better.
9 - Larry Rolirad
I GIVE UP... I JUST JOINED THE REPUBLICAN PARTY
LASER INDEPENDENT NEWS SERVICE
by Larry S. Rolirad
I became a compassionate conservative republican today. I went to a local republican congressman's office and they told me what I had to do to become a compassionate conservative republican. I now support the Iraq war and the killing of tens of thousands of innocent people. I now like to see people being killed. Since Bush is now talking about using nuclear weapons against terrorists I would love to see him use them against every suspected terrorist. I don't care if there will be millions of innocent people killed by the nuclear explosion with nuclear fallout contaminating the entire planet.
I now belittle and condemn people who are poor and in need like the Hurricane Katrina victims. Those victims deserve the misery they have, because they are all black, poor and democratic. I now condemn black people, because as a new compassionate conservative republican I know they are inferior and not completely human. I now look at them as 3/5 ths of a person like the good old days when only white men could vote or own land. Since republicans don't believe that judges should change the law blacks would still be slaves, blacks and women could not vote, and only white men could own land.
Since I became a compassionate conservative republican I now think that no one should help the poor. Let them starve. I now look at poor people as inferior because if they were worth anything they would have lots of money. I now disregard everything Jesus said about the poor, the needy, and the hungry. I now know by being a republican that Jesus was wrong about helping to feed and save people in great need. As a new compassionate conservative republican I now claim to be a Christian but yet not have to follow Jesus's philosophy of love and peace because all I have to do is claim that I'm a member of God's party. And like Bush, I will now claim that Jesus is my favorite philosopher. Hey, it got him millions of votes from the dupes who actually believed that nonsense.
I now believe that it is ok to satisfy my own greed and wants instead of spending time helping others, like Bush, who went to a republican fundraiser and played golf when the people in New Orleans were made homeless, were drowning, were suffering, and who were drowning. I now believe it is great to go fly fishing for three days while people were trying to keep from drowning as the water rose all around them. After all, that is what Dick Cheney did while people's lives were being destroyed by Hurricane Katrina. Dick Cheney even took another few days off to spend ten million of his Halliburton money to buy another mansion in Maryland, while he ignored the defenseless, the frail, they elderly, the sick, and the dying. I now feel it is good to just ignore the plight of others. After all, it would take away from my time being greedy.
Speaking of greed, I now believe that we should spend unlimited amounts of our treasury on the military, even if the money doesn't add one dime's worth of defense to our country. I believe that our soldiers in battle areas should have to buy their own armor to protect themselves, because that means corrupt republican companies can steal more money from our government. As a new republican I also believe it is the responsiblity of the parents of our troops to spend thousands of dollars out of their own pockets to buy armor like bulletproof vests to protect their own children. After all, the more money that comes out of the pockets of our troops and their parents means that more of our taxes can be stolen by corrupt and evil republican corporations, like Halliburton. Lastly, I believe that the widows and parents of soldiers who are killed in Bush's Wars should have to pay for their own body bags, caskets, and flags that are draped over them. I also believe that the widows and parents of soldiers Bush has murdered should have to pay to have their bodies flown home to their distraught families. Why should the taxpayers have to pay to return our dead soldiers? After all, republicans like to say that our dead soldiers 'enlisted' so it is their family's responsibility to have their dead sons and daughters returned.
I love being a compassionate conservative republican. Now, I only think of myself and no one else. After all, poor people are poor because they are all are drug addicts, bums, hobos, lazy, stupid, and generally useless. I now believe that only the wealthy have any worth as a person, because if a person has a lot of money that means they all worked very hard to get their money. I don't care that the facts state that 94 percent of the extremely wealthy inherited their money, like all of Sam Walton's deadbeat kids. Each one of them is worth 19 BILLION dollars. But, as a new republican, I know that those children of the Walmart founder had to work hard to squirm out of their mama's womb.
My fellow Americans, I now love being a compassionate conservative republican. As requested by most Bush supporters who have been critical of my past posts, I will immediately cease exercising my First Amendment rights. I will cease exercising my rights to assembly and to protest like that evil Cindy Sheehan did. As a republican I know that Mrs. Sheehan even if she did have her son killed in Bush's oil war she shouldn't have the right to protest. I will cease exercising my right to petition the government for any redress of grievances. I will also have the Bush regime review and edit all of my articles before I post them for public display. And by not exercising my rights guaranteed by our Constitution and Bill of Rights I know I will be hurting the terrorists by playing right into their hands.
I am also against having anymore elections. Since almost all of the votes that were counted in last year's election were done by paperless voting machines made by republican companies is there any doubt that republicans would win most of the elections? Those republican owned companies which made all of those voting machines refused to disclose the software code inside of the machines so it was easy to throw out millions of democratic votes, or count democratic votes as republican votes.. The companies which made those machines didn't have anything to worry about since there was no paper trail to worry about. They could put any corrupt software code they want to steal elections without being accountable. So since all elections are rigged anyway then why have them at all? Does anyone really believe that Bush won the 2004 election? Ha, ha, ha! LOL! LMFAO! In a lot of democratic precincts where people voted 95 percent for democrats in the past, Bush "won" those precincts last year. As a new republican I love corrupt companies running our elections. Besides, those democrats who voted shouldn't have their votes counted because they are all stupid anyway. Yeehaww. If we eliminate elections I won't have to be bothered with knowing anything about candidates or the issues. I will be able to use my mind trying to decide what show I want to watch on my television, like Jerry Springer and wrestling matches. Oh yeah, as a good 'family values' republican I will now start watching Hollywood's most violent movies many of which were made by such good republicans like violencemongers Arnold Swartzenegger and Chuck Norris, producers of the biggest body-count movies ever made.
Further, I will become a non-thinking pawn to Bush regime propaganda. I will believe everything that they say. I will not think. I will not question. I will not act. I will just sit back and wave my American flag that was made by slaves in communist China. I know now that only republicans are patriotic. I went to Walmart today to get a bunch of American flags and I made sure they were all made in China. But since everything in Walmart is made in China I didn't have to do much thinking. Yes republicans, thank you for allowing me to be a compassionate conservative republican.
To ensure that I can continue to be a compassionate conservative republican I have scheduled an appointment this week to have 99 percent of my brain removed. That will lower my IQ to that of a typical republican. After all, GW Bush can't read, write, or speak on a third grader's level so why should I have to think beyond that level?
Next, I will have almost all of my heart taken out because republicans don't seem to have any heart or feelings for any other human beings. That is proven by the fact that republicans are willing to spend unlimited amounts of our hard earned tax dollars to kill innocent people and destroy things, but not want to spend a dime to help people or to build things. Hell, it will be easier not having to care for anyone else. Yeee haaaa, it will be so easy being a republican!
Now where is that damned remote? Now that I am a compassionate conservative republican I have a strong urge to watch wrestling, roller derby, Jerry Springer, Faux News, and violent cartoons.
Signed,
A Former Good American
Copyright 2005, LRolirad, All Rights Reserved
LASER INDEPENDENT NEWS SERVICE
Note: The above is a satirical view of republicans and in no way is meant to paint all republicans with the same brush, although if rank-n-file republicans fail to speak out against corruption and evilness in their party they are just as guilty as their 'leaders'.
10 - Trent Lott Criminal
Fantastic article! I am sure your tongue was firmly planted in your cheek as you wrote every word. Everything you say about republicans in your article is absolutely true. They don't give a damn about our country or Americans, because all they care about is their evil and corrupt political party. Republcians believe this is one big game and all they care about is electing republicans, no matter how inept, corrupt or immoral they are. Great article, but a republican wouldn't understand it because it is longer than a three word slogan like "Bring em on" or longer than a thirty second soundbite. Face it, republicans are mostly ignorant, illiterate and very, very gullible to fall for the pathetic likes of a GW Bush, the stupidest and most corrupt thug to ever occupy the White House. God help save America from the corrupt republican party of corporate whores.