The Social Compact Revisited

Tags

democracy, federalism, founding fathers, rights and duties of citizens, social compact

It occurs to me that I may have too much time on my hands, or on the other hand, this is what retirement should be all about–unfettered hours to wonder about “things”.

Preferring the latter conclusion, I wonder forward.

Once upon a time in a land far from here, or not, men (let’s be honest that women were seldom asked their opinion and mores the pity for that undoubtedly) gathered to discuss an important topic. Was it fruitful to continue in an “every man for themselves” mode or was their value in grouping together in mutual associations. Such associations of course presupposed that some individual freedom would be lost for the common good of all.

Thus the concept of government was conceived.

At first the common good was no doubt safety from marauding bands of bad guys from other tribes, but it soon led to giving up all kinds of individual rights for all kinds of common ends. If Babor’s extra production of wheat was needed to feed more than just his family, than Manduk’s herds of sheep need be fenced from trampling those fields.

Things went along in that fashion with different systems being tried out, eventually that led to strong men and rule by might rather than agreement. Rebellions and re-formations resulted in a myriad of different systems by which human beings organized themselves into larger and larger entities.

Lo and behold, a bunch of folks made their way to a “new world” which was quite old to the people who already lived there, but new enough to them. After pushing indigenous folks out of the way, they then threw off the yoke of king and Parliament, and found themselves with a country to set up.

Our illustrious fore-fathers, mindful of the social compact ideas of Locke and Rousseau and Montesquieu, set down in Philadelphia and over some months of wrangling and persuasion, arrived at what we call a Constitution, a document that sets out with some generality the rights and duties of citizen and government.

Ask about anyone and they would say, that this phenomenal document has served us well since 1789 or so. That seems to be based on the fact that we are still here as a country. Any cursory look at the document itself suggests that a good deal of the language is antiquated and now unclear. Do we really think in terms of militias any more? What is cruel and unusual?

The world has changed a lot since those days. We are increasingly a global society. We are a people who has grown in size from something in the area of 3 millions to over 300 millions. Our land has tripled or quadrupled since 1789. Our demographics are vastly different. Our ability to travel has increased exponentially. Our ability to get news on almost any subject has as well. Our technologies threaten to out pace our understanding of them or how they will impact on our daily lives.

Government systems are always a compromise of sorts. When we talk about “free” governments, or “elected governments” we speak of the ever-present tension that exists between the individual and the common good. Our political parties seem to split along those lines and have now hardened into an extreme on one side, and a “common good” leaning at least on the other.

Is it not time to rethink who we are, what we want and what we are willing to give up to continue in this great experiment?

It seems we should be having this dialogue (whatever that means). Does this constitution any longer adequately deal with the problems that confront us? Are we beginning (or have we for some decades now?) tortured the language to achieve the outcomes we believe right. Of course the next Court then sees things very differently and they torture it in other ways to achieve quite different outcomes.

Here are some questions I have thought about:

1. Is our current federal government divided into an executive, congressional, and judicial branch with serious checks and balances, a useful system today, given the complexities of our global world? Would a parliamentary system work better, given our intense polarization?
2. Do we really want an unfettered right of individuals to own and carry firearms? Is the ability of people to “redress” government by arms a viable option in this day and age?
3. Given our capabilities in technology, what is the meaning of “search and seizure” for the individual today? Where do we draw the line in terms of our ability to spy on each other? Given the threats of terrorism, should we give police more or less ability to fetter out criminal behavior. Does the ability of some to hack into sensitive systems change our opinions? Does the ability of terrorist elements to get ahold of nuclear material change the equation?
4. If we respect the right of people to believe in God in the fashion they choose, does it make sense to grant tax benefits to religious organizations? What constitutes religious objections to a law? Does one have a concomitant right to be free from religion?
5. What are the duties of citizens? Should all be required to vote or pay a tax? Should we have a federal holiday on election day? How should we limit the influx of money from exceedingly wealthy individual toward either controlling who is the candidate or which party wins? Should we limit the time of electioneering? Should there be only federal registration of voters, and only federal requirements for eligibility?
6. Should everyone be called to some time of “public service”, either through the military or other “public corp” work? What constitutes a “conscientious objector”?
7. Does the government have the right to require education to a certain level, and are certain basics required? Are they reading, writing, and arithmetic, or might they be parenting, basic civics, conflict resolution, critical thinking skills? Should every person have the right to as much education as they desire, and free of charge?
8. Do people have a natural right to life? When? Can or should the state take it away under any circumstances? Which ones?
9. Do people have a natural right to food, IF the state at large can provide sufficient quantities?
10. Do people have a natural right to medical care regardless of their ability to pay if we have the technology to treat them? If not, then what limits attach?
11. Given the costs of incarceration, mental health treatment, and various other costs incurred, does the state have the right to set standards of who can be a parent? Is being able to be a parent the right of being human? Why? Does the state have the obligation to clean up the messes created by those who are not suited to parent properly? What standards would you suggest? Who would set them?
12. Should we allow “professional” politicians? Should citizens be required to “serve” in government for a specified time?
13. Do we wish to set limits on the growth of private business? How big is too big? Should corporations be people? Should they be allowed to control multiple divergent areas and thus virtually control a market?
14. Do individual states serve a purpose in the world today? If so, what? What things should be left to local “governments”?
15. What constitutes free speech? What constitutes speech?
16. Given the technology that is close to approaching an ability to monitor the brain and determine “truthful” statements, do we still wish to maintain a right to remain silent? What constitutes “being a witness against oneself”? Are bodily fluids private? Are brains waves private?
17. Are our bodies ours to do with as we wish? Does the state have a right to deny the use of drugs or other substances? Abortion? euthanasia? How can it, if it can, regulate such things? How does this impact personal privacy?
18. Should there be limits on individual wealth? What kind of tax system do we envision that is fair to all?

It seems to me that these are just a very small number of questions we might ask. Many would argue that some of these are so well established that they should bear no discussion. Is  this true or right? What things would you want to add? What opinions do you have on one or more of the above?

Is it time to rethink this social compact?

Meet the Original Libtards!

Tags

American History, Enlightenment, founding fathers, History, reason, religion

Our friendly Tea Party “Patriots” often tell us that they love the constitution. In fact it takes second place only to that timeless book, the Bible–the one God wrote to tell us how to behave. Probing, (as I am always wont to do), I discover that it’s not only the constitution that is revered, but of course the “founding fathers” who, as you know, among other things, brought us the constitution.

That always amuses me ever so much.

Sadly, it seems common to the PayTREEots not to dig too deeply into the mantras they are taught by Fox and people like pseudo-historian David Barton. If they did dig a bit they would find that their adulation is ironic to say the least. Barton of course would have them believe that the FFs were all deeply religious men and that they basically made the Declaration and Constitution tracts which God hopefully would  approve of wholeheartedly. The truth of course lies quite a ways left of Mr. Barton’s imaginative ramblings.

We all know that many of the founders of our fair republic were anything but religious in their leanings. Jefferson is notable for his refusal to believe in the truth of any of the bible’s miracle stories, actually editing them out of his personal bible. (You can see his bible with all the little cut-outs somewhere, probably at Monticello). The other giant, Franklin might be defined as a deist at best.

This should not be surprising since all the FF were the rich elites of their day, and were well read. And what they read and what inspired them (oh you must remember this from high school) were the likes of Locke, Rousseau and Voltaire. All were “men of the enlightenment”. You could easily add Isaac Newton and Spinoza to the mix as well. They were men who started to see that the world could be explained through normal observation and reasonable deductive conclusion. Some, like Newton, were men of science, who were uncovering the physical laws that governed the universe.

In all cases, they were the heretics of their day as well, rejecting the church’s claims that the bible was the only resource needed to explain the world. Some professed a belief in God, but not in the traditional sense of their day.

The explosion of new thought spread across Europe and Britain, and eventually to America where it inspired Jefferson, Franklin, Madison and others to reject the “god-given” circumstances of both colonialism and monarchy. They were “enlightened” to perceive the world differently and their place within it differently. They could finally conceive of themselves as in control of their own destinies.

They formed a government based on enlightenment principles of freedom, democracy, and most of all reason as the basis for rule. They ushered in the concepts of capitalism, markets, the scientific method, religious tolerance (read tolerance to practice what YOU believed, or be free to believe nothing). It was a movement based on equality and commonality and shared responsibility.

In effect, they were the liberals of their day. They were the heretics to the religious right with all their talk of reason and science. They brought forth a new type of government.

The conservatives of their day? They were Tories.

It thus is so very ironic to think of Tea Party adherents touting their love and admiration for our Founding Fathers, today. In the time of our founding, such people would have been sending their sons to stand with King George III.

But of course Tea People never think that deeply.

I can see why.

It is just too embarrassing.

Reading Between the Lines

Tags

David Barton, Dick Morris, founding fathers, GOP, History, Joe Walsh, Republican lies, Republican philosophy

 

 

The Contrarian often accuses me of being too partisan. Well, maybe I am, but frankly it’s very hard not to be. The clear and unadulterated fact is that all politicians mislead. The Democrats do it from time to time. The Republicans, on the other hand, do it as a matter of course. They seem so sure that their true intentions are so out of line with what any human would agree with, that lying is the only way to get us to “take our medicine.”

And believe me, medicine is what they are offering from their strange world view. I think it goes something like this–Rome fell in part because it let every Tom, Dick, and Harry become a citizen. They then fed them free of charge. They became entitled from their point of view. Rome became lazy and bloated with a welfare mentality and was ripe for the picking.  And they were picked.

They would claim that the US is falling behind in everything because the government and Democrats want to grow a nanny state, which is what Europe did, and look at the mess they are in, powerful and mostly bankrupt. We are too lazy, and we expect the government to provide for us, so why bother?

Okay, the medicine. Drastically reduce all controls on business and let it be a free system where the successful will rise to the top and the not so successful won’t. When business has freedom to do what it wishes, the economy will flourish, employment will rebound to  offer a job to all who wish one. Those who don’t wish one–not their concern. All government programs that support the poor? Slashed drastically or gutted completely. The only safety net is temporary and for those who have fallen on hard times through no fault of their own.

Religion by the way, will pick up the slack for the truly poor who are unable to work permanently. That’s called charity and you should be damned glad we just don’t throw you into the furnace.

Of course, such a plan is silly, and misses the biggest ingredient of all–GREED. It depends on the good intentions of the business community, and frankly we see way too little of that these days.

Anyway, that’s my take on what they want to do and why. And that it sucks is why they lie about everything and try by hook and crook to win the day rather than tell the truth and let average people decide.

Take one idiot–Joe Walsh–a name not to be bandied about for long, since he is surely to lose his seat in Congress come November. His pronouncements become more outlandish every day. He sees Al Qaida behind the recent shootings in Colorado and Wisconsin. He calls the President “boy” and claims that Jesse Jackson wants to return all African-Americans to the plantation–which if you didn’t know, is code, for “he’s an uppity Negro”.

Just read that our favorite pseudo-historian David Barton, has had his book pulled off the shelves and all publication stopped because the publisher became “aware” that it was full of errors.

His newest book, Jefferson Lies, turned out to be just chock full of them.

Irony is sweet at times doncha think?

Aww, and Barton is always saying that the only people who disagree with his books are dirty liberals.

Speaking of crazy out of this world lunatics, consider Dick Morris, mouthpiece of Foxy Noise who is almost always wrong in his predictions but enjoys the drama so much.

Morris has a new book out called Here Come the Black Helicopters which he claims is code for attacking Washington. In this case he means Obama, who he claims will impose a world government through the UN if re-elected.

Remember that crazy guy who predicted the end of the world recently? I think he should pick the day after the election, cuz Republicans sure say a lot of bad stuff is gonna happen should the Prez be re-elected. Hang onto your hats–and guns!

Another paste eater as a kid for sure.

One could go on.

Endlessly.

Until the sun implodes and becomes a white dwarf.

Until Ying meets Yang.

But I have a Cobb salad to make for dinner, so that’s all for now.

 

 

Related articles

• David Barton’s Book Will Rise Again (patheos.com)
• David Barton’s Christian Publishers Have Pulled His Book from the Shelves Due to Factual Inaccuracies (patheos.com)
• NPR Looks Into David Barton’s Bunk History, Refusal to Respond to Criticism (secularnewsdaily.com)
• Is Dick Morris the world’s worst political pundit? | Harry J Enten (guardian.co.uk)
• Dick Morris: “Don’t Believe Garbage Being Put Out By Media… Romney Is Winning” (thegatewaypundit.com)
• Rep. Joe Walsh says Democrats want minorities ‘to be dependent on government. That’s their game.’ (dailykos.com)
• Congressman Joe Walsh Repeatedly Refers To President Obama As “Son” (alan.com)
• Joe Walsh swipes legislation. From a Democrat. (dailykos.com)

 

History is What I Say It Is

Tags

abortion, American History, Atlantic Slave Trade, Clarence Thomas, David Barton, founding fathers, GOP, Michele Bachmann, right-wing Christianists, SCOTUS, Women's issues

It’s been apparent for some time that some of our states have been engaged in revising history to say what they feel more comfortable with. Spurred on by pseudo-historian David Barton, such Republicans as Michele Bachmann and Mike Huckabee have given new versions of our country’s beginnings that soften substantially the evils that we have faced from our past.

Bachmann has an entirely new version, based on Barton’s made up nonsense for instance, on slavery. We are now told that the Founding Fathers were intent on ending slavery and even that one of the impetuses for migration to this continent was to get away from British slavery practices. This shocks Britain no doubt, since they ended slavery decades before the US, and moreover faced American intransigence in their efforts to stop the movement of slaves across the Atlantic.

This would be bad enough, but of course it doesn’t end there. School districts across the south are revising their curricula to reflect a “whiter” and more religious orientation, whether it be history or science. This is perhaps where Barton and his religious firebrands do their worst damage–deeply infecting the next generation of Americans with a mindset that is incorrect. Colleges thus become more and more, correctors of misinformation rather than furthering the knowledge of their students.

The link today relates to the Atlantic Slave Trade. It revisits some older work that is still considered some fifty years later as being basically sound research. The review is carried on the link from History Today, and there is an internal link to the original abstract, published in 1958. It’s good to be reminded of the truth.

♦

 For some time now, the rabid Right-wing Christianists, the ones who say “do as I say, not necessarily as I do,” have aimed their vitriol at Planned Parenthood. Screeching about fetuses and murder, these crazed nut cases have offered a trade–their votes to the GOP in return for a GOP assault on all things PPH.

Planned Parenthood, as most people know, does so very much more than abortions. It is often the only means of general women’s health in communities that are loaded with poor women. They screen for cancer, offer birth control, and in general provide free health care to low-income women who are in dire need. They counsel teens and help them avoid pregnancy.

Yet, state after state is denying funding to PPH in hopes of retaining the Christianists in the voting booth. And the toll is horrific. In all too many states, PPH is being forced to close their doors, and thus turn their backs on women and their health needs. Zander has a couple of excellent posts on the subject.

♦

Don’t expect much to ever come of this. The SCOTUS is one of the most insulated branches of government. It is definitely not self-governing in the sense that the Congress is (ethics investigations, censures, expulsions). Individual justices who are miles apart ideologically, go to extraordinary lengths to get along, since the work of the court is so intimate in its nature.

Abe Fortas was one of the few justices who was “forced” to leave the bench for his unethical relationships with those who gifted him. I’m not sure that we live in the same times today. The far right tends to glam onto any dark face that talks like them, as proof of their lack of bigotry, so they are likely to raise a loud defense today against the increasingly scandalous behavior of one Clarence Thomas.

Thomas has for years now been gifted and supported by those who ultimately find themselves before his court. And he votes accordingly. It remains to be seen whether he will even bother to recuse himself from cases in which he has financially benefited. The man remains one of the most successful grifters in the country.

♦

We consider Michele Bachmann and idiot, but she is not the same kind of idiot as Sarah. Sarah is both stupid in general and has no particular desire to learn anything. She is simply engaged in self-promotion. Not so Michele. Michele is a true believer in all the right-wing Christianist crap from being anti-gay to creationism, PPH to God whispering in her ear and leading her down the right path. This makes her willing to rely on the stupid (if wishes were reality) blabberings of Barton and others of his ilk. She is also a savvy politician, and absolutely loves the game and is willing to learn the basics of economics and domestic policy.

This all makes her dangerous. If you read nothing else today, don’t miss Matt Taibbi’s fine piece at Rolling Stone today. Her minions love her with the same crazed devotion as Sarah’s do, yet she is Politifact finds her statements the most untruthful of any politician. Beware. I beg you to read this. It is long and every paragraph is filled with so much insanity, that you will be chilled to the bone. This woman is fifty times more dangerous that Sarah could even contemplate.

♦

 

Related articles

• Michele Bachmann – Ignorance In Motion (k1nsey6.com)
• Matt Taibbi on Michele Bachmann’s holy war (dangerousminds.net)
• Michele Bachmann Does not Equal Sarah Palin (via Poll Insider) (loopyloo305.wordpress.com)
• Taking Apart the Right’s History Lies (ynative77.wordpress.com)
• David Barton belongs in a tent in Tennessee in 1911. But he’s a right wing fav instead just like ‘Pastor’ John Hagee who says the Catholic Church is the anti-Christ. Oh I could go on . . . I do go on. And on. (maureenholland.wordpress.com)
• Indiana Planned Parenthood Cuts Off Medicaid Users (newser.com)
• Quick Hit: The Real Cost of Defunding Planned Parenthood (Jezebel) (pphsinc.wordpress.com)
• Religious Right Pseudo-Historian Barton: The Founding Fathers Wanted Schools to Teach Creationism (littlegreenfootballs.com)
• Lying For Jesus: David Barton (scotteriology.wordpress.com)
• David Barton Is Still Not A Historian But He Is A Liar (hooglyboogly.wordpress.com)

Founding Fathers Opposed Darwin!

Tags

American History, Anthony Weiner, boredom, David Barton, early humans, evolution, founding fathers, Health care, Herman Cain, immigration, lifestyle, Neandertals, paleontology, philosophy, psychology, Rick Santorum, science, self

Shocking? I guess it should be given the fact that Darwin didn’t publish his seminal work until 1859, more than half a century after our government was formed.

That is the claim however of the pseudo-historian David Barton. And he claims that no less of a questionable religionist than Thomas Paine, who died the same year that Darwin was born, argued that creationism must be taught in the schools.

If all of this leaves you a bit skeptical, well, Barton has plenty of other ideas that would make a big business  CEO grin from ear to ear. Jesus was opposed to minimum wage laws, and therefore unions, as well as progressive income taxes.

Even more shocking Mr. Barton explains the real impetus for the revolution was not economic, but a persistent dedication to the eradication of slavery. Somehow, England ultimately beat us to the punch on that, but no matter, it’s the thought that counts.

You can read all this and watch the actual interview wherein Barton espouses his unique “history” by following the link.

♦

Herman “step ‘n fetch it” Cain is busy these days, yakking up the airways with his bizarre understanding of the world. He too has a slippery grasp on history as he reminded us to “read that small section of the constitution” wherein we were promised life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Except that that little phrase doesn’t come from the constitution, but rather from the Declaration of Independence.

Cain then went on to and pontificated that as President, he would not sign any bills longer than three pages. Given that much of any bill deals with its impact on a plethora of other agencies and legislation and regulations and interfaces are essential for all these things to work together, this presents quite a problem. It suggests that Cain would end up signing zero bills. It also suggests Cain has no sense whatsoever of how the government operates.

Now Cain explains how he would deal with the problem at the border with Mexico–a wall, akin to the Great Wall, and one with a companion moat, and yes, filled with alligators!

Cain appears to subscribe to the Palin school of knowledge–just say what seems sensible to you, even when its demonstrable that you are not a very sensible person.

♦

“To thine own self be true?” Okay, but how exactly is one to determine who the true self is? It’s a lot harder question than you might have thought. Depending on what standard you use, you can end up at quite different conclusions. A very thoughtful article by Joshua Knobe.

♦

That leave you bored? Well join the club. Boredom is a human condition, no matter what anyone says. Even animals get bored. Boredom can be normal or abnormal, situational or existential. So if you find yourself bored, then read all about this subject! Nothing could be less boring.

♦

Memo to Antony Weiner: Dude, don’t miss the next meeting of “How I threw away my life”. Lots of your favorites will be there! Tiger Woods will offer the first testimonial. Also, a good move would be to check into rehab forthwith. That tends to get a sympathy vote. Sex addiction is the hottest trending rehab these days.

♦

When I was growing up, to call someone an Neandertal was essentially to call them something just barely above the level of ape. Today, our understanding is vastly superior, and we find that most of our old assumptions were wrong. Neandertal DNA shows up in some parts of today’s populations. And there is no evidence that Neandertals were in conflict with more modern man.

♦

These chin-ups are sure to pay off in the future!

♦

If you aren’t totally tired of Weiner jokes, then bop on over to Political Irony and see the late night comedians do their thing.

♦

Ricky “don’t google me” Santorum, just can’t stop being a boob. It’s his nature. He has told Johnny McCain that he don’t know nothin’ bout no torture, said that climate change is a patent absurdity, claimed he would make marriage inequality the center of his campaign, and so forth. Now in the growing Republican revision of history, he tells us that the D-Day invasion occurred precisely to insure the American right to private health care. Yes, he said that:

 

Almost 60,000 average Americans had the courage to go out and charge those beaches on Normandy, to drop out of airplanes who knows where, and take on the battle for freedom. … Those Americans risked everything so they could make that decision on their health care plan.

 

Yes, my friends, the ultimate nutjob said that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Related articles

• Lying For Jesus: David Barton (scotteriology.wordpress.com)
• You know, David Barton has a reputation for inventing quotes, but this is ridiculous (scienceblogs.com)
• Herman Cain’s Immigration Plan: A Great Wall of China and Alligators in a Moat (alternet.org)
• FYI – Most Neandertals were right-handers. (jwitness.wordpress.com)

In the Name of God

Tags

American Exceptionalism, founding fathers, God, Islamophobia, Politics, racism, religion, right wing extremism

The atheists have a powerful argument when they suggest that millions have died in the name of religion. They are right. From the beginning, humans fought over land each claimed was theirs by right, given to them by God.

It’s never ended. Down through all these millenia. We have continued to fight over land and control of populations, all the while upholding our efforts as the “will of God.”

It continues today in a war being waged between Jews, Muslims and Christians. All claim they are doing God’s bidding.

There is always a good argument that mankind would have been better off not listening to the small voice within that urges us to believe that we are destined for more than just a brief sojourn upon this planet only to return to dust.

The truth is, all these wars instituted to protect, promote, or to destroy a religion, are done in the name of religion. There is no objective proof that any of this is called for by God. The deeper you look, the more you see human motivation driving the crusade to install “our” God.

Any fair reading of the Old Testament raises a very obvious question. Isn’t it awfully convenient that God has been on the “side” of the Israelites, thus allowing them to then justify their genocide of whole towns and settlements? How convenient to declare that God has said, “why this land I give to you, so go and subjugate all those who oppose you taking their land.”

Muslims feel utterly justified in controlling the Holy Land, as do Jews, as do Christians. Over time, each has held sway for a time, and been more than willing to kill to retain power. All in the name of God. All in the name of an interpretation, that just might be a bit self-serving.

Religion versus religion, and religion versus secularism erupts in mostly non-violent war in this country today. It has been growing steadily, or resurging I should say. We can be sure that the US expansion into the West and our suppression of indigenous people, either red or brown, was done in some sense in the name of God. We are the City upon the Hill, and as such, God’s new chosen.

This convenient “American Exceptionalism” poisoned with religious righteousness, has justified in the eyes of its perpetrators all kinds of injustice, from genocide to land grabbing, and slavery.

For periods of time, we placed religion in mostly its rightful place–as a facet of each person’s life as they chose or not. Government stayed out of faith, and faith stayed out of government. Religion was a good place to develop ethical, moral, and just responses to issues of the day. It was not the only place however. Government did it’s best to cull the best of the just response and act upon it for the greater good of all, and so that minorities were not walked upon.

I was thinking of Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson, whatever his personal beliefs about God were, certainly believed that it was a personal issue, not one for the public square. Washington was so loathe to be seen as promoting a particular tradition that he didn’t go to church at all as president.

What must they think of the goings on today? One can only imagine. I suspect they would see it for what it is, shameless religiosity to justify what people want to do anyway. A serious segment of the religion right who intone  “marching in lockstep with Israel” do so only because they believe they are promoting their version of the end times. This of course is not lost on the Israelis, but they accept their friends where they can get them.

Herman, Step-‘n-fetch-it, Cain argues that in his uninformed mind, most Muslims are Sharia law followers, and as president he wouldn’t have time to ferret out the few who aren’t, so don’t blame him for not putting any Muslims in his prospective administration.

A segment of the religious right rejects Mitt Romney only because he is “not the right kind of Christian”. Warren Cole Smith, associate editor of the World, a right-wing magazine, argues:

Placing a Mormon in that pulpit would be a source of pride and a shot of adrenaline for the LDS church. It would serve to normalize the false teachings of Mormonism the world over. It would also provide an opening to Mormon missionaries around the world, who could start every conversation: “Let me tell you about the American president.” To elect a Mormon President is to advance the cause of the Mormon Church.

Non-Christians likely don’t care much about this point one way or the other. But for the Christian, this is a vital issue. One of the strongest warnings Jesus issues is to those who “lead little ones astray.” He said it would be better for that person if a millstone were put around his neck and he were cast into the sea. The validation of the false religion of Mormonism would almost certainly have the effect of leading many astray. Evangelical Christians should have no part of that effort.

This is no different from back in 1960 when a goodly sum of Protestants were pretty darn sure that electing a Catholic to the presidency would be tantamount to installing the pope in the White House, and for some, that was Satan himself.

The UCCB, the official spokesman for the American Catholic Church, has written a letter to Speaker John Boehner, basically condemning the Ryan plan and other GOP plans to gut Medicare as unfairly burdening the least able, while gifting the rich with more riches. Arguments go back and forth within the Catholic world as to whether or not voting for this person or that can be justified under definitions of intrinsic evil.

Exactly what Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers feared, has come to fruition. The public forum is now embroiled in an increasingly vitriolic war of words over whose interpretation of sacred scripture is controlling.

And underlying it all is the ugly raw truth. It still comes down to using God to justify why somebody’s vision of the world should be the one everyone else should be forced to live under. And it’s wrong, period.

End of rant.

Can I Have an Extra Day Please, with Sugar?

Tags

abortion, brain, budget, cosmology, David Barton, Eric Cantor, evolution, founding fathers, History, medicine, Mike Huckabee, Planned Parenthood, psychology, soul, teabaggers, women's rights

Everybody has those kinda days. When you get up already behind. This is usually the result of “sleeping in”. I’m a 7 am kinda person. I find that a humane time to arise. Some days, I don’t quite make it. Thus, I’m behind.

Tomorrow, I’m shopping, so I’m not sure I’ll get to blogging.

The Contrarian, however, puts his time to good use. He’s a thinker. Remember his desire to hold a thinkathon? Much easier than having a walkathon he thought.

When he thinks too much, well, I usually get concerned. His latest “breakthrough” is a humdinger.

The Contrarian has long pondered the existence of the soul. That has led him to toil in the backyard of the differences between humans and other animals. That place, he contends is where one might locate the seat of our divine connection. With me so far?

The places tred by medical men and women, philosophers, and theologians. What of the soul?

And, as I said, he thinks he has had a breakthrough.

He asks this question:

Is there any other animal but humans who react with distaste to the fart?

I know, its blasphemous. It’s crazy. It’s absurd, illogical, and downright unpretty. It is the Contrarian. Don’t blame me. I’m just reporting the news.

♦

If’n you didn’t know, the right-wing religious are, as you know, against abortions. And they are very against Planned Parenthood, and they devise all manner of nasty things to “prove” that PPH should be shut down. One of their more ingenious methods is to claim that PPH is about the business of genocide of the African-American population. This because statistically more black women obtain abortions than white or Latino.

Now the fact that this has to do with poverty and lack of access to medical information and contraception at the same level as their more wealthy white counterparts is ignored. No, it’s so much easier to suggest that PPH has as an unstated goal, the destruction of an entire people.

I imagine that the NAACP and other African-American groups are so grateful to the white folk for being so concerned for them. Yes, I guess we can all be grateful to those benevolent white people.

♦

Roger Ebert talks about what he understands as the Universe and evolution. It’s a lovely piece. Makes ya feel all warm inside for reasons I cannot explain. Least it do for me.

♦

See, now we know that serendipity is real. I mean, after writing about the Contrarian and his “breakthrough” I come across this article: Natural History of the Soul. Nicholas Humphrey argues that spirituality is essential to consciousness. Read it in The New Humanist. Humphrey is an evolutionary psychologist, and he’s written a book called Soul Dust: The Magic of Consciousness. Looks like a very interesting read.

♦

If there were any question about the agenda of Mikey Huckster, read on. It seems Mikey attended one of those uber right-wing  conferences, one that featured pseudo-historian David Barton and his revisionist history of the founding of this country. Why Mikey was just adoring of said Barton and said the following:

 “I almost wish that there would be, like, a simultaneous telecast, and all Americans would be forced–forced at gunpoint no less–to listen to every David Barton message, and I think our country would be better for it.”

Of course, in the “official” video of the event, the “joke” was scrubbed. And of course, Mikey meant every word, until he realized it wouldn’t play well outside his crazy base.

♦

Good news to report. I don’t have a link, but I’ve heard or read it in so many places that it is obviously true. The teabagger phenom is beginning to wane. Their unfavorables are now above their favorables. Which is all the more amusing since the Prez wannabes are all still dancing like marionettes to the teabagger tune, afraid to pirouette too far from the dark force. 

This is causing all sorts of problems with the budget. Word is that Boehner wants desperately to make a deal rather than shut down the government, but he dare not piss off the wonkettes, who are picketing in Washington, even as we speak. Well, we all knew this would happen didn’t we?

And who might you ask is riding to the rescue? None other than boy wonder Eric Cantor. Cantor has introduced a bill that will be voted on in the House on Friday, entitled, “Government Shutdown Prevention Act.” What it does it tell the Senate to act on the budget bill before the deadline and if it doesn’t the House passed bill will become the law of the land.

Yes, you heard that right. Cantor is simply tearing the Constitution up and making up his own new one. Yes, that’s some pretty strict construction there Mr. Cantor. Uh…do you dance too?

♦

What’s on the Stove? Fajitahs!

Related Articles

• Mike Huckabee thinks all Americans should be forced at gunpoint to listen to David Barton (heartchasms.wordpress.com)
• Huckabee Wants Barton to Teach All Young Americans [Dispatches from the Culture Wars] (scienceblogs.com)
• David Barton: Bad Preacher, Terrible Exegete (scotteriology.wordpress.com)
• Soul Dust by Nicholas Humphrey – review (guardian.co.uk)
• The Books Interview: Nicholas Humphrey (newstatesman.com)
• Anti-abortion billboard using Obama’s image raises ire (windsorstar.com)