Image du Jour

With thanks to commenter duke of gibbon at Friendly Atheist:

The article is worth reading, on how evangelical"Christians" are really just power-hungry hypocriets. Thinking back, it occurs to me that the "Moral Majority", which Reagan's handlers enlisted to boost his election chances (Tail Wags Dog! Film at 11) was never a religious movement. It was always a political movement. And evangelical "Christianity" is still a political movement.

About Face, Forward March

On gay rights, at least, under a Biden admionistration:

As vice president in 2012, Joe Biden endeared himself to many LGBTQ Americans by endorsing same-sex marriage even before his boss, President Barack Obama.

Now, as president-elect, Biden is making sweeping promises to LGBTQ activists, proposing to carry out virtually every major proposal on their wish lists. Among them: Lifting the Trump administration’s near-total ban on military service for transgender people, barring federal contractors from anti-LGBTQ job discrimination, and creating high-level LGBTQ-rights positions at the State Department, the National Security Council and other federal agencies.

Basically, he'll do everything possible to reverse Trump's policies, which of corse came straight from Pence/Jeffress/Perkins/Graham, etc. There's a lot he can do unilaterally, like reversing the ban on transgender military service, since those thingsd were done by executive order. The article goes into some detail on ways and means and is worth reading.

(Via Joe.My.God.)

Of course, good "Christians" like Franklin Graham are sounding the warning:

LGBTQ activists within the Democratic Party are pushing their godless, secular agenda with a potential Biden Administration. If you don’t conform to their ideology, agree with their sinful beliefs, teach what they say is right, they want to close you down.

They will pressure and bully politicians to get their way. It is extremely dangerous if they are permitted to proceed unchecked.

It's called "projection", ladies and gentlemen -- substitute "evangelical 'Christians'" for "LGBTQ activists" and you have the right's strategy of the past several decades.

We Knew This Was Coming: Religion Über Alles

THe first "religious freedom" case decided by the new, ultra-conservative Supreme Court went as we should have expected:

In a preview of how much damage a conservative majority on the Supreme Court can cause, the justices ruled 5-4 late last night that religious institutions do not have to abide by a public health order in New York limiting how many people can gather in one place. . . .

Here’s the basic backstory: New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo issued an Executive Order earlier this year that created limits to how many people can gather in one spot depending on how serious the COVID outbreak was in that region. That was a responsible, science-based decision. In the most dangerous areas, that meant a maximum of 10 people could attend a religious event at one time, even with precautions, while slightly less dangerous areas allowed for a capacity of 25.

There were, however, exceptions to that rule. For example, more people could be inside a grocery store (with masks) since they’re not hanging around and chatting with each other. You’re in, you’re out, it’s essential.

The Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and a coalition of synagogues, individuals, and an Orthodox Jewish group sued Cuomo, saying the restrictions interfered with their religious freedom by limiting their attendance. They also said it was unfair that the “essential” exceptions to the rule didn’t apply to them.

Chief Justice Roberts sided with the liberal wing, but super-Catholic Amy Cony Barrett voted predicatbly.

This follows a trend over recent years of conservatives, particularly "Christians", pushing the "religious freedom" argument as far as it will go. The courts have treaded gingerly -- too ginerly, in my opinion -- in allowing exceptions to the law, notably in regard to anti-discrimination laws. Here we see the beginnings of a wider application of the Free Exercise Clause, which is that they've been working toward.

There's much more at the link -- Justice GOrsuch wrote the majority opinion, which Justice Sotomayor eviscerated in her dissent. It's worth reading the whole article. (And the NYT article linked in the first paragraph of the quote has even more detail.)

Needless to say, the decision is being slammed by just about everyone.

It seems to me that these cases are really very simple: all rights have limits. So, if you want to do business with the general public, you have to abide by non-discrimination laws, no matter your religious beliefs. And Jesus had something to say about praying in public (Matthew 6:5-6):

5 "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full.

6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

The name of the case, which no one seems to want to include in their stories, is Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York v. Cuomo.

As We Head Into the Season

This is something more people should keep in mind. With thanks to commenter David L. Caster at Joe.My.God.

The linked post is a story about Brian Brown of NOM once again asking for money to help forestall Democratic control of Congress, the Senate, and the White House. The real consequence of that as far as I'm concerned is that they might be able to start undoing some of the damage the Republicans have done in the past four years.

As for Brown's money-beg, I'm surprised anyone donates to NOM at all -- it is probably the most completely ineffective hate group out there. But as they say, there's one born every minute. If you need a refresher on just how divorced from reality the "Christian" right has become, click over to the post,

The Pope Puts His Foot in It

I'm doing a little catching up on this one (it's been one of those weeks). You may have run across a story on the Pope's comments on legalizing civil unions for same-sex couples:

Pope Francis is calling for same-sex couples to be “legally” protected by civil union laws.

“Homosexuals have a right to be a part of the family,” the Pope says in a new documentary, Catholic News Agency reports. “They’re children of God and have a right to a family. Nobody should be thrown out, or be made miserable because of it.”

Later, Pope Francis defended his remarks in the film, saying, “What we have to create is a civil union law. That way they are legally covered.”

As you might imagine, the reaction has been less than positive among the "faithful".

Franklin Graham's response (not that anyone asked him to respond) is noteworthy for its lack of -- well, call it Christian compassoin:

Graham sees the Catholic Church’s new regard for supporting LGBTQ people in law – not religion – as so dangerous to the Christian faith he says it would mean Jesus died for nothing.

“For Pope Francis to attempt to normalize homosexuality is to say that Holy Scriptures are false, that our sins really don’t matter, and that we can continue living in them,” Graham told his nine million Facebook followers. “If that were true, then Jesus Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection wouldn’t have been needed. The cross would have been for nothing.”

Apparently, in Graham's eyes the whole point of Jesus' life was to deny gays and lesbians the right to live with dignity and self-respect -- to be treated like normal human beings.

The response from the Catholic hierarchy is no less scathing. Here's Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano:

Bergoglio is a candidate for ‘pontiff’ of a new religion, with new commandments, new morals, and new liturgies. He distances himself from the Catholic religion and from Christ, and consequently from the Hierarchy and the faithful, disavowing them and leaving them at the mercy of the globalist dictatorship. Those who do not adapt to this new code will therefore be ostracized by society and by this new ‘church’ as a foreign body.

Vigano doesn't seem to have twigged to the fact that the "faithful" are already being ostracized. (And as Joe notes in his comment, Vigano uses the Pope's birth name, not "Pope Francis" or any of the honorifics normally used to refer to the pontiff.

This one's choice. From Bishop Thomas Tobin:

“The Holy Father’s apparent support for the recognition of civil unions for same-sex couples needs to be clarified.

“The Pope’s statement clearly contradicts what has been the long-standing teaching of the Church about same-sex unions.

“The Church cannot support the acceptance of objectively immoral relationships. Individuals with same-sex attraction are beloved children of God and must have their personal human rights and civil rights recognized and protected by law.

“However, the legalization of their civil unions, which seek to simulate holy matrimony, is not admissible.”

The part about "objectively immoral" relationships is, as far as I'm concerned, a real howler. Given that the basic moral dictum is "take care of each other", all these arbitrary rules cherry-picked from the tribal taboos of Bronze Age Middle-Eastern nomads can hardly claim to be any sort of standard for moral behavior. (In that vein, Tobin is credibly accused of ignoring child sexual abuse complaints when he was auxiliary bishop of Pittsburgh.)

There are other resonses, of course. What's most noteworthy of the lot is that their reference is to Catholic dogma and not to the teaching of Christ -- who had nothing at all to say about homosexuality or same-sex relationships.

The Hysteria Mounts

The Supreme Court's ruling in Bostock has really hit the anti-gay hate groups and hate-group wannabes hard. They're just beside themselves. This, from the ever hateful Tony Perkins, is perhaps more revealing than he intended:

To most Americans, the sellout of Neil Gorsuch, who not only voted with the liberal members on the Harris case but authored the majority opinion, will be the lingering horror. If even he can’t bring himself to agree that the word “sex” means male and female — not the Left’s wild reinterpretations of “sexual orientation” or “gender identity,” who will?

To label Justice Gorsuch a "sellout" just fairly screams "We didn't put you on the Court to rule on the basis of reality!" I like the bit about the ruling being a "lingering horror", too. They're really pulling out the stops.

And The Federalist is even more over the top:

Joy Pullmann, executive editor at The Federalist, wrote that the ruling would result in the “further degradation of Americans’ natural rights to free speech, to free association, and to worshipping God as their consciences require.” The headline on Pullmann’s article claims that Monday’s ruling “Firebombs” the U.S. Constitution. She writes:

This decision is a disgrace to these bedrocks of Western civilization, our nation built upon them, the voters who vote for them, and to these men’s honor. President Trump ran promising judges who wouldn’t murder America, and Gorsuch just gave him and everyone who voted for him a giant middle finger. The court’s newfound weakness will also be exploited and explored by leftist legal agitators whose goal is the destruction of the American system.

Now, Ms. Pullman, we all know who's out to destroy the American system, and it's not Neil Gorsuch or his colleagues on the Court -- it's your hero's puppet master, who's sitting in the Kremlin laughing himself silly.

Even James Dobson has come out of his crypt to rant (yes, apparently he's still alive):

Not only was this decision an affront against God, but it was also a historical attack against the founding framework that governs our nation.

Our judiciary is constitutionally charged with interpreting the law, not making law. In its 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court acted as a super-legislature and failed to carry out its primary duty to the American people. And we will all pay the price.

Oh, and about the judiciary interpreting the law: that's exactly what they did.

And from our "president":

“They’ve ruled and we live with the decision,” Trump said, defeated and somewhat sad. “We live with the decision of the Supreme Court.”

I guess someone told him he can't fire Gorsuch. And note the enthusiasm. (My own take is that he doesn't care one way or the other about LGBT rights -- he just needs to keep the evangelicals feeding at the trough.)

And in spite of the right, time marches on, and society marches with it.

Chipping Away, "Free Exercise" Version

Catholic Charities is at it again, and now the Trump/Barr "Justice" Department, Evangelical Division, has stepped in:

In the latest example of the Trump administration seeking to enable legal discrimination against LGBTQ people, the Justice Department is calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to allow religious-affiliated adoption agencies to refuse child placement into LGBTQ homes.

In a 35-page brief, U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco and other Justice Department attorneys maintain the City of Philadelphia has “impermissibly discriminated against religious exercise” under the First Amendment by requiring Catholic Social Services to abide by a contract requiring LGBTQ non-discrimination practices in child placement.

“Governmental action tainted by hostility to religion fails strict scrutiny almost by definition,” the brief says. “This court has never recognized even a legitimate governmental interest — much less a compelling one — that justifies hostility toward religion.”

The U.S. government isn’t a party to the case, known as Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, so the brief is completely voluntary. In justifying the brief before the Supreme Court, the filing makes the case the Justice Department has a compelling interest to intervene.

The City of Philadelphia is insisting that "Christians" abide by a contract. The horror!

The case came about after the City of Philadelphia learned in March 2018 that Catholic Social Services, which the city had hired to provide foster care services to children in child welfare, was refusing to license same-sex couples despite a contract prohibiting these agencies from engaging in anti-LGBTQ discrimination.

And the DOJ's brief looks to be 35 pages of bullshit:

Although the case involves Catholic Social Services refusing to abide by the terms of its contract, the Justice Department framing of the litigation makes it seem like the City of Philadelphia is an aggressor and unfairly targeting Catholic Social Services, asserting the municipality is allowing for exemptions in some cases, but not religious-affiliated adoption agencies.

“The City impermissibly targeted religious organizations for enforcement of its newly articulated policies,” the brief says. “Commissioner Figueroa testified that, in determining whether foster-care agencies were complying with the anti-discrimination requirements of their contracts, the city focused only on religious agencies, making just a single inquiry to a secular foster-care agency…City officials made no effort to determine whether other secular agencies perform home studies for everyone who requests them, or show preference for or against individuals who fall within particular groups.”

When this happened in Illinois, the state suspended funding to Catholic Charities adoption services and threatened to pull their license. Catholic Charities got out of the adoption business -- and a number of other agencies, including those run by the Lutheran Church -- took over their case load.

Via Joe.My.God.

Today in Disgusting People

Actually, it's not just a person, it's a whole organization. The "American" "Family" Association is in full pearl-clutching mode over a new PBS series:

PBS is going all out in the month of June to celebrate LGBTQ+ Pride Month by launching a six-episode series of short videos on a dedicated YouTube Channel created by its Digital Studios.

Each Tuesday, beginning May 26, PBS will release a Prideland vignette focusing on an LGBTQ+ person and how that person deals with the ever-changing attitudes of Southern communities toward homosexual lifestyles.

On June 12, PBS will offer its member television stations the opportunity to air a one-hour companion special featuring series host and homosexual activist Dyllón Burnside. PBS’s decision to partner with Burnside to push the homosexual agenda is an unjust attack on Christianity and a mockery of the Bible and God’s design for human sexuality.

Sadly, PBS is proudly promoting a lifestyle that is unhealthy to both the individual who participates in the unnatural sexual behavior and to society as a whole.

In 2020, PBS received $445 million in taxpayer funding. This means you and I are directly paying for PBS to insult our faith and scoff at our God. I hope you will take a moment to let PBS know you oppose its support and promotion of this series.

Once again, we get a full dose of the arrogance and self-importance that seem to be a basic component of certain brands of "Christianity". As an example, here's the key comment:

PBS’s decision to partner with Burnside to push the homosexual agenda is an unjust attack on Christianity and a mockery of the Bible and God’s design for human sexuality.

So, doing a series on a historically persecuted group -- persecuted by the likes of the AFA -- is an "attack on Christianity". In fact, anyone who disagrees with them or dares to express a different viewpoint is attacking their religion. This, of course, is just a repeat of their "poor persecuted Christians" mantra -- from a group that has no claim to be actual followers of Christ and that is part of the evangelical movement that's managing to infiltrate all levels of government.

Oh, that the taxpayers whose dollars are being used to fund this endeavor include LGBT+ individuals and allies. The AFA, by the way, is not one of those taxpayers -- it's incorporated as a 501(c)3 charitable organization, which means it's tax-exempt. And it's a hate group, listed by the SPLC.

In other words, AFA was founded and is run by power-hungry hypocrites who use distortions, misrepresentations and outright lies to push their agenda, which itself is simply to take over control of what you read, watch, and think.

It occurs to me that Hitler had the support of the churches in German, and Mussolini had a treaty with the Vatican. Take that as you will.

Read It and Weep

Pew has done another survey. This one should give you pause:

Today, about half of Americans (49%) say the Bible should have at least “some” influence on U.S. laws, including nearly a quarter (23%) who say it should have “a great deal” of influence, according to a recent Pew Research Center survey. Among U.S. Christians, two-thirds (68%) want the Bible to influence U.S. laws at least some, and among white evangelical Protestants, this figure rises to about nine-in-ten (89%).

Here's the breakdown:

It gets worse:

All survey respondents who said the Bible should have at least “some” influence on U.S. laws were asked a follow-up question: When the Bible and the will of the people conflict, which should have more influence on U.S. laws?

The more common answer to this question is that the Bible should take priority over the will of the people. This view is expressed by more than a quarter of all Americans (28%). About one-in-five (19%) say the Bible should have at least some influence but that the will of the people should prevail.

Two religious groups stand out for being especially supportive of biblical influence in legislation, even if that means going against the will of the American people: Two-thirds of white evangelical Protestants (68%) say the Bible should take precedence over the people, and half of black Protestants say the same. Among Catholics (25%) and white Protestants who do not identify as born-again or evangelical (27%), only about a quarter share this perspective.

I've been saying for a while that evangelical Christians simply don't believe in democracy -- their whole religious philosophy is founded on authoritarianism.

However, all is not lost:

At the other end of the spectrum, there’s broad opposition to biblical influence on U.S. laws among religiously unaffiliated Americans, also known as religious “nones,” who identify as atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular.” Roughly three-quarters in this group (78%) say the Bible should hold little to no sway, including 86% of self-described atheists who say the Bible should not influence U.S. legislation at all. Two-thirds of U.S. Jews, as well, think the Bible should have not much or should have no influence on laws.

One thing that tends to get glossed over, if mentioned at all, in reporting on the doings of the "religious" right, is that they're a minority. Unfortunately, over the past couple of generations, the Republicans have managed to put too many of them into positions of influence.

Time to clean house.

Via Dispatches from the Culture Wars.

Today in Disgusting People -- A Twofer

Franklin Graham and his minions move to the head of the line:

The group building a makeshift tent hospital for coronavirus patients in Manhattan’s Central Park is asking all volunteers to read and follow a “statement of faith,” including rejections of same-sex marriage and abortion.

As the toll of the outbreak on New York continues to increase dramatically, Mount Sinai Health System has been working with the relief group Samaritan’s Purse to open a 68-bed respiratory care unit that will begin treating patients as early as Tuesday.

Praised by Mayor Bill de Blasio (D), the tent facility is one of several efforts to expand medical capacity across the city: A 350-bed facility is set to be erected at the Queens tennis arena home of the U.S. Open, while a temporary hospital has been constructed inside a Manhattan convention center.

Yet unlike the other projects, Samaritan’s Purse has asked all volunteers working at the field hospital — including health workers — to pledge to 11 declarations, Gothamist reports, including one that defines marriage as “exclusively the union of one genetic male and one genetic female” and another that says “human life is sacred from conception to its natural end.”

The Christian group was founded by Franklin Graham, a minister with a famous preacher as a father and a history of making incendiary comments, and has specifically sought out Christian medical staff for the tent hospital.

I'm surprised they haven't demanded that patients sign the same pledge.

And then there's this:

As some local lawmakers questioned whether LGBTQ patients would receive equal treatment, a spokesperson for de Blasio told Gothamist that the field hospital must adhere to Mount Sinai’s nondiscrimination policy.

“Our record on human rights is clear; and we are confident that the joint effort by Mt. Sinai and Samaritan’s Purse will save New Yorkers’ lives while adhering to the values we hold dear by providing care to anyone who needs it, regardless of background,” she wrote to the news blog.

I think it's telling that the statement came from de Blasio's office and not Samaritan's Purse.

Things like this are, I think, one of the elements that differentiate the loudly religious from normal people: they can't even follow the teachings of Jesus (see Matthew 25:31-46 for a good summary) without attaching strings, on the order of "you must belief what we believe" -- even to volunteer to help those in need.

Add in Jerry Falwell, Jr., who decided to re-open Liberty University:

As Liberty University’s spring break was drawing to a close this month, Jerry Falwell Jr., its president, spoke with the physician who runs Liberty’s student health

service about the rampaging coronavirus.

“We’ve lost the ability to corral this thing,” Dr. Thomas W. Eppes Jr. said he told Mr. Falwell. But he did not urge him to close the school. “I just am not going to be so presumptuous as to say, ‘This is what you should do and this is what you shouldn’t do,’” Dr. Eppes said in an interview.

So Mr. Falwell — a staunch ally of President Trump and an influential voice in the evangelical world — reopened the university last week, igniting a firestorm. As of Friday, Dr. Eppes said, nearly a dozen Liberty students were sick with symptoms that suggested Covid-19, the disease caused by the virus. Three were referred to local hospital centers for testing. An additional eight were told to self-isolate.

What did anyone expect?

Once again,that unique combination of arrogance and self-importance that marks the blatantly religious.

Today's Must-Read: Onward, Christian Soldiers!

I'm not the only one who's noticed the rabid support Trump gets from evangelical "Christians" -- from Franklin Graham and Robert Jeffress on down. And I'm not the only one who's noticed how the evangelical movement has taken over the Republican party -- at least, the part not already owned by corporate America. It's not by chance, as Val Wilde points out in this post at Friendly Atheist:

This I guarantee: You know the “Seven Mountain Mandate.”

You’ve read about it online. You’ve watched it on the news. You’ve seen it in action, even if you’re not aware of it. Most Americans aren’t. Yet it’s a concept that inflects nearly every part of U.S. politics, touching the lives of all Americans as well as plenty of others around the world.

It is the battle plan for an American theocracy that has been in the works since the 1970s. At least, that’s when the movement’s founders claim God spoke to them individually and directly about the seven “mind molders” of culture and how to claim them for Jesus Christ.

Wilde goes on to lay out the game plan, from its beginnings in the '70s to now. From a video by Lance Wallnau:

What we need to be doing now, in this complicated world that we’re having such a limited impact, is we should be going into all the systems instead of all the nations… The Christians in the West are not shaping culture because they don’t understand the game. The game is: not souls only, but nations. If you get a nation you can win souls. It’s not about just focusing on eternity, it’s about focusing on what’s happening now.

What's happening now is that they've got someone in the White House who will give them free rein in return for their support.

Read the whole thing.

WTF? A Twofer

The "Christian" apologists are out in full force, and even more clueless than ever. First, Glenn Beck, from a diatribe against Pete Buttigieg:

You can’t pick and choose if you’re going to use the Bible.

As if every Christian throughout the history of the religion hasn't done just that.

And even more unhinged, Bill Donohue:

There is a reason the Diocese of Harrisburg filed for bankruptcy the day after the Boy Scouts of America did: both have been targeted by lawyers who have a profound hatred of institutions that promote traditional moral values. It is incontestable that no religious organization is known for doing this more than the Catholic Church, and no secular organization can rival the Boy Scouts on this score.

It would be interesting to learn a bit more about what Donohue considers "traditional moral values". I had never heard that they included raping boys put in your care.

Words fail me.

Liar du Jour

Maybe of the month -- but he's got some pretty stiff competition. At any rate, here's hate group spokesman Bryan Fischer trying to see how many lies he can pack into one paragraph:

I am a Christian nationalist because the Founders were. The Founders established a nation grounded and rooted in Christianity, Christian principles, and a Christian worldview. They enshrined their view of what a Christian nation looks like in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

He goes on. This one is worth a good belly laugh:

While Christian nationalism is condemned and dismissed by some as a thinly disguised form of white supremacy, it is impossible that that could be the case. The ringing declaration of the Founders was that “all men,” every last one of them, regardless of race or ethnicity, have received certain non-negotiable human rights from their Creator.

1) Christian nationalism is not a thinly disguised form of white supremacy. It is a blatant form of white supremacy.

2) "Regardless of race or ethnicity" -- unless they're brown and speak Spanish. Or Arabic. Or Farsi.

3) And lets not mention sexual orientation -- Fischer has built his career on trashing gays.

And yet more:

I use the term “constitutionalist” synonymously with “Christian nationalist,” because our constitution is the constitution of a Christian nation, and could only be the constitution of a Christian nation. Our Constitution is shot through, warp and woof, with the thinking of Christian statesmen who shared a deep-dyed view of the world, soaked deeply in the Bible.

This is pure fantasy -- or delusion, except that I'm pretty sure that Fischer knows what the actual basis of the Constitution is -- this country is, without doubt, a child of the Enlightenment -- and he's lying about it. It's what he does.

The disheartenting thing is that even if his listeners learned some real American history somewhere along the line, they've rewritten it in their heads to conform to their biases -- excuse me, I mean "sincerely held beliefs".

No, I'm not going to link to the whole diatribe. There's a link at Joe.My.God (linked above) if you really want to ruin your morning.

(Stray thought: considering how many radical right "Christians" own guns, I'm sort of surprised that no one tried to assassinate Barack Obama. I wonder if that will hold for the next Democratic president.)

Quote of the Day

Embedded in a post from Digby about Trump's campaign rally at an evangelical mega-church in Florida was this choise tidbit:

“I really believe he was sent to us,” she said. “From one to ten, he’s a ten. He lives in a Christian world and we needed a strong Christian, somebody who is not afraid. He speaks for us, has the guts and courage to speak what we want to say. His actions, his intentions, are Christian.”

Given what "Christianity" has become in the last forty years, I can't dispute her -- but this is a case of "that doesn't mean what she thinks it means".

And I'm sure in her daily life she passes as a perfectly normal, sane person. To any rational, moral person, she's obviously delusional. But she votes -- which in itself should scare you.

And do read the whole post -- it really looks as though the Trump team is running scared.

Today in Disgusting People

A "Christian," of course. This is what you get from an alternate reality:

“So let me get this straight. Obama is a gay man, married to a dude who looks like Chewbacca, & Chewy gets selected as ‘woman of the year’. Trumps’ wife fluently speaks 7 languages, is a class act of poise & beauty & is an actual WOMAN. Yet she gets treated like the Clampetts.” – Self-proclaimed “Christian broadcaster” Sheila Zilinksy, in a tweet that has over 1300 likes.

Trump's wife? Which one?

I don't, as a rule, comment on people's looks as a way to insult them, but Zilinsky has made herself fair game:

According to an update in the comments, the tweet has been deleted, whether by Zilinsky or by Twitter is unknown.

And these racist assholes just can't get over the Obamas, can they?

Turn Off Your Irony Meter (Update)

Apparently Christianity Today, which has long been a mouthpiece for conservative "Christians", has done the unforgivable:

Just in from hate group leader Tony Perkins:

Yesterday, Mark Galli, the outgoing editor-in-chief of Christianity Today published a scathing editorial calling for President Trump to be removed from office. Within hours, the article went viral as the mainstream media rushed to capitalize on what they believed was an opportunity to exploit a divide in President Trump’s evangelical supporters.

But anyone following Christianity Today shouldn’t be surprised by the magazine’s public backing of impeachment. In 2016, CT’s executive editor denigrated Christians who supported then-candidate Trump weeks before the general election, writing: “Enthusiasm for a candidate like Trump gives our neighbors ample reason to doubt that we believe Jesus is Lord.”

What's happening to the evangelical movement? First it was Chick-fil-A tapering off their donations to anti-gay hate groups, then the Hallmark Channel restoring a commercial with a lesbian kiss (in spite of the outrage expressed by another hate group), and now this!

This is the part that got my irony meter whirling out of control:

Dismissing the genuine concerns of millions of evangelicals and publicly questioning their commitment to Christ signaled an out-of-touch, ivory-tower elitism completely out of step with Jesus’ own command to love one another (John 13:34).

(Emphasis added.)

(Perkins always likes the sprinkle his press releases with references to Bible verses. I guess we're supposed to be impressed by that. To me, at least, it doesn't mask the fact that he has built his career on the exact antithesis of Christ's teachings.)

There's a lot of speculation that the evangelical movement is starting to unravel, and, at least in part, that might be the case: the wing that is sincere in their beliefs may very well be alarmed at the polls showing the majority's low opinion of Christianity, largely due to the efforts of Perkins and his ilk. The political wing is obviously alarmed at the openness of dissent, and feels they have to quash it to maintain their own credibility.

Oh, well -- pass the popcorn.

Update: There's more information on this whole flap at Crooks and Liars, including Franklin Graham's reaction (his father founded the magazine) and the oop-ed writer's reaction to Trump's rage tweets.

Image of the Week

Or maybe of the year. This is dedicated to all those "Christians" who support the acting president's immigration policies. (They're the same assholes who get all bent out of shape because some store clerk says "Happy Holidays!")

From the accompanying article:

Ristine described the Holy Family as “the most well-known refugee family in the world” in the post on Saturday.

“Shortly after the birth of Jesus, Joseph and Mary were forced to flee with their young son from Nazareth to Egypt to escape King Herod, a tyrant. They feared persecution and death,” she wrote, asking: “What if this family sought refuge in our country today?”

“Imagine Joseph and Mary separated at the border and Jesus no older than two taken from his mother and placed behind the fences of a Border Patrol detention center,” she continued, adding: “In the Claremont United Methodist Church nativity scene this Christmas, the Holy Family takes the place of the thousands of nameless families separated at our borders.”

It's nice to know there are some real Christians left.

Merry Christmas.

With thanks to commenter Bite Me Fan Boy at Joe.My.God.

What's New at Green Man Review

The usual mix of this, that, and something you hadn't expected:

Scarecrows, A Classic H.G.Wells’ Novel , Metallica in Antarctica, So-so chocolate, Improv Jazz, Steeleye sans Maddy and Other Interesting Matters

So grab your coffee and dig in.

Snowflake du Jour

None other than former governor and current trumpanzee Mike Huckabee, whose knickers are twisted because someone said mean things about him:

When a persistent critic, a lawyer on the public side of the beach access battle, tweeted back with sarcasm and humor, Huckabee tried to silence him by filing a formal complaint with the Florida Bar. The complaint should be tossed out as a sham and an abuse of the system of disciplining lawyers.

In his Bar complaint, Huckabee accuses lawyer Daniel Uhlfelder of “vile and unprofessional attacks” and “repeatedly posting disparaging information about me,” which Huckabee claims violate Bar rules on integrity of the legal profession. Huckabee argues that the Bar is the right forum because the lawyer’s Twitter profile mentions his law practice.

The one that really got Huckabee's goat:

In his bar complaint, Huckabee accuses Uhlfelder, who has a mere 422 Twitter followers, of disparagement. The complaint points to a tweet in which Uhlfelder joked that Huckabee’s Secret Service code name should be “beach thief.” “He accused me of theft, a crime of moral turpitude,” Huckabee’s complaint reads.

Well, if anyone should know "moral turpitude," it's Mike Huckabee, whose son tortures animals for fun and whose daughter is a professional liar.

This is just another variation on a relatively new tactic of "convervatives": use the courts (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) to harass people you disagree with. And interestingly enough, although the "offensive" tweets happened months ago, Huckabee filed his complaint shortly after Uhlfelder retweeted photographs showing him in the company of two of Rudy Giuliani's pals, currently under indictment, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman. Of course, I'm sure that has nothing to do with the timing of the complaint. Yeah, right.

And here's the capper (turn off your irony meter):

As for Huckabee, he’s on Twitter promoting a new documentary entitled No Safe Spaces, which features two conservative radio talk show personalities in an examination of restrictions on free speech on college campuses. Without a hint of irony, Huckabee tweeted: “The 1st Amendment right of Free Speech is precious, but it hangs by a thread.”

Via Joe.My.God., who has these articles and more, including some very pointed editorial cartoons and a link to a delightfully snarky opinion piece. I do recommend reading the whole thing and following the links. If nothing else, it will give you a good take on just how petty and vindictive "conservatives" are these days.

Today in Christian Love

You may or may not have been following the Chick-fil-A story, but here's a short summary: Earlier this month, Chick-fil-A, which had gained more than a little notoriety for donating heavily to anti-gay groups, announced a change in its charitable giving priorities:

Starting in 2020, the Chick-fil-A Foundation is introducing a more focused giving approach to provide additional clarity and impact with the causes it supports. Staying true to its mission of nourishing the potential in every child, the Chick-fil-A Foundation will deepen its giving to a smaller number of organizations working exclusively in the areas of education, homelessness and hunger.

(Emphasis in original.)

The outrage in "Christian" circles is way up on the Richter scale, with such luminaries as Tony Perkins, the group that Joe Jervis calls the "red-caped Catholic loons" (for the life of me, I can't remember the organization's real name), Charlie Kirk (whoever he is), and Bryan Fischer calling for a boycott. It seems that not only was the company to cease giving to bigoted groups such as the Salvation Army (remember when during the Bush administration, the SA tried to get an exemption from non-discrimination laws?), but actually donated to the "god-hating" SPLC (one of the oldest and most respected civil rights organizations, which has the temerity to call out hate groups -- so designated as a result of their own words and actions). (Interestingly enough, all the stories I can find on that donation are at right-wing sources; I'm not going to link to any of them, because they have very little contact with reality -- the only thing they seem to have reported accurately is the fact of the donation and the amount -- a very modest $2500.)

And we all know how effective boycotts by the "Christian" right have been.

Anyway, according to Snopes, that's not exactly the case.

What's True

The Chick-fil-A Foundation's November 2019 announcement of a new charitable-donations strategy meant the Salvation Army and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, both high-profile groups that have been criticized in the past as anti-LGBT, would no longer receive funding in 2020.

What's False

However, the new donations strategy also meant several dozen other groups — with no anti-LGBT record — would not receive funding in 2020 either, and so the strategy does not appear to have been targeted specifically at the Salvation Army and the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. Further, Chick-fil-A has repeatedly declined to specify that the cut to the controversial groups' funding was linked to their LGBT-rights records, and a company spokesperson would not rule out the possibility that the groups could receive funding again in the future.

So once again, there's a lot of manufactured outrage over something that didn't actually happen. I guess someone's not been getting enough attention lately.

And do notice how these "Christians" are reacting to a donation policy focusing on education, homelessness, and hunger. True followers of Jesus, right?