Conservatives And Immigration

Obama has pleased most of the country with his recent expression of humanity towards children of illegal immigrants, but he has really pissed off the right wing. Mitt Romney is being forced into a more hard line position, which will make it more difficult for Republicans to win Hispanic votes. Conservatives on the internet are becoming quite hysterical. I’ve received a few emails wondering how anyone could support Obama, between doing something they believe is unconstitutional to warning of dire consequences if all these foreigners are allowed to stay. It is hard to decide which part of the conservative argument is more comical.

The claims of Obama’s act being unconstitutional is clearly absurd, but it does point out how conservatives view the Constitution. Note that most conservatives had no problem with real attempts to ignore the Constitution and increase Executive power during the Bush years. Did these conservatives complain about Dick Cheney’s unitary executive theory? They certainly show no respect for separation of church and state. I think that to conservatives, the Constitution is like Mitt Romney’s Etch-A-Sketch, having no relationship to the document actually written by the Founding Fathers. It changes to allow what they support and opposed what they disagree with.

As I was pushing the delete button on conservative email prophesying g all types of doom if we allowed these foreigners to stay, I was wondering why they are so worked up about an imaginary, overblown threat, while they ignore real problems which endanger the country, such as climate change or Republican economic policies which are destroying the middle class. Is there any explanation for this inconsistency beyond racism?

Facts and the Internet vs. Religious Faith

Hemrant Mehta explains How The Web Is Killing Faith:

Open access to knowledge — the ability to fact check your pastors and imams and rabbis — is a death knell for religion as we know it, and the Internet is only hastening the process. (I focus on Christianity in this piece because it has the largest Web presence in the United States.)

It wasn’t long ago when statements made in a pulpit were simply assumed to be true. Now, a child with an iPhone in the pew can find ample evidence contradicting whatever the men of God are saying. That “true story” your pastor is telling? Snopes.com debunked it long ago. Gay marriage is destructive, he says? Thousands of YouTube videos made by gays and lesbians in love — as well as other Christians — can attest otherwise. Evolution is a liberal conspiracy? TalkOrigins.org will show you how to respond to every argument on the Creationist side. Abstinence-only sex education is working? Not according to the new scientific study you just read.

The web might not be totally killing off religion, but it certainly is dangerous to fundamentalism. It comes as no surprise that there is a strong connection between religious fundamentalism and conservatism. Both groups based their views on religion and ideology and ignore facts which contradict their views.

Posted in Religion. Tags: . 1 Comment »

Mitt Romney Stands By What He Said, “Whatever It Was”

A super PAC supporting Mitt Romney had planned to release an add reviving the Reverend Wright attack line against Obama. Apparently someone in Romney’s campaign realized that this could backfire. Romney said that bringing this up would be the “wrong course” and the ad was dropped. (There is also some question as to whether the PAC actually planned to release the  ad or if this was just a way to dominate a news cycle).

Romney might have come out of this looking good if not for the fact that he previously raised Wright when appearing on Sean Hannity’s show in February.

The video is above. Here is a summary from ABC News:

In the clip, after Hannity played a sound bite of Obama saying, “Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation,” Romney said he believed Obama didn’t understand “that Judeo Christian philosophy is an integral part of our foundation.”

“I’m not sure which is worse: him listening to Rev. Wright or him saying we must be a less-Christian nation,” Romney said.

Needless to say, besides bringing up Wright on his own, Romney is also wrong in his belief that this is a Christian nation, contradicting the views of the Founding Fathers.

Romney made matters worse for himself when asked if he agrees with his former statement (which contradicts the view he expressed today). Here is the transcript of the exchange  (with video above via ThinkProgress):

QUESTION: “When you did an interview with Sean Hannity in February, you said that you believed that Obama is trying to make America a less Christian nation. It was responding to quote that he had just played for you on the radio. Do you stand by that? And do you believe that President Obama’s world view was shaped by Reverend Wright and do you see evidence of that in his policies?”

ROMNEY:I’m not familiar precisely with what I said, but I’ll stand by what I said, whatever it was.”

This is reminiscent of the comment which hurt John Kerry in 2004: “”I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.” While poorly worded, Kerry’s gaffe actually did make sense in context. There were two different votes with differences in how the supply was funded. Kerry is hardly the only Senator to vote in different ways when there are significant changes in different versions of a bill.

In contrast, Romney’s statement reinforces what we have already seen. Romney will say whatever he sees as politically beneficial at the time, regardless of  what he might actually believe, and regardless of the facts.

Someone such as Romney who takes different positions on different days will inevitably have difficulty recalling what position they took on a prior day. It might be fun to ask Romney about more of his previous statements. We could see how many he actually remembers, and how often he will stand by previous statements contradicting current statements.

 

Romney Includes Favorable Line About Non-Believers When Speaking At Liberty University

With Mitt Romney constantly taking whichever views are most politically beneficial at the moment, it is difficult to be certain as to what Romney believes. I do believe he is not as extremist as the Republican primary voters he has been pandering to (although that is of little comfort if he lacks the will to stand up to them in office). Romney did follow Obama’s lead in expressing one viewpoint this weekend.

When Obama reached out to non-believers in his inaugural address there was considerable protest on the right. Obama said, “For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and non-believers.”

Romney made a comparable reference to non-believers at Liberty University:

Someone once observed that the great drama of Christianity is not a crowd shot, following the movements of collectives or even nations. The drama is always personal, individual, unfolding in one’s own life. We’re not alone in sensing this. Men and women of every faith, and good people with none at all, sincerely strive to do right and lead a purpose-driven life.

Perhaps this is a sign of increased liberalization in this country, with candidates of both parties now feeling obligated to accept non-believers. It will be interesting to see if the right wing attacks Romney for this statement as they attacked Obama for his. Should Romney be attacked by the right on this, will he back down to the far right as he has on so many other issues?

This is all very interesting, but ultimately the question of which religion one accepts, or if they accept none at all, is not the key issue for a candidate. The real issue is whether one accepts our heritage of separation of church and state, as Barack Obama does, or if one will follow the right wing in denying separation of church and state and of using the power of government to impose their religious views upon others. So far Romney has not shown any sign of standing up to the far right on this.

Mitt Romney Remains A Weak Candidate, Except Among The Very Religious

Last night’s primaries, occurring after Rick Santorum left the race, turned out to give pretty much the same picture as when there was more of a contest: Mitt Romney will be the nominee, but many Republicans would prefer to vote for someone else. Smart Politics points out the weakness of Romney’s victories:

Over the last 40 years there have been nearly 80 contests in which the presumptive Republican nominees played out the string after their last credible challenger exited the race.

In every one of these contests, the GOP frontrunner won at least 60 percent of the vote, even when ex- and long-shot candidates remained on the ballot.

But on Tuesday, Romney won only 56 percent of the vote in Delaware and 58 percent in Pennsylvania, home to Rick Santorum who dropped out on April 10th.

While Romney avoided the embarrassment of winning with a mere plurality, never has a presumptive nominee won a primary contest with such a low level of support at this stage of the race with his chief challenger no longer actively campaigning.

Clearly the author doesn’t consider either Newt Gingrich or Ron Paul to be a credible challenger, and the assumption looks valid. Even Newt Gingrich has realized this, dropping out of the race. While Ron Paul’s chances at winning are still the same as at any other point in time,  zero, it will be interesting to see if he manages to receive more primary votes as the last candidate standing, allowing him to take a larger block of delegates to the convention than would otherwise occur.

Jimmy Carter says that, while he would prefer Obama, he would feel comfortable with Romney:

“I’d rather have a Democrat but I would be comfortable — I think Romney has shown in the past, in his previous years as a moderate or progressive… that he was fairly competent as a governor and also running the Olympics as you know. He’s a good solid family man and so forth, he’s gone to the extreme right wing positions on some very important issues in order to get the nomination. What he’ll do in the general election, what he’ll do as president I think is different.”

I would refer Carter to yesterday’s post on this subject. There is certainly a reasonable chance that Romney is more moderate than he now claims to be. It is really impossible to tell what opinions Romney has, or if he even has any, considering the way he can sound sincere while taking either side of any issue. Unfortunately Romney has painted himself into a “severely conservative” corner and will have difficulty moving out. Even should he prefer more moderate positions, it is hard to see him resisting the wishes of a far right wing Congress, which is the most likely result should conditions in the fall favor a Romney victory.

It is clearly far too early to predict who will win. Polls now favor Obama, but they can change by November. I am encouraged by Obama’s strength in most of the battleground states, although he is likely to lose some states he won in 2008. Republicans who were encouraged by a narrow Romney lead in Gallup’s daily tracking poll will not want to see that Obama has jumped to a seven point lead. I suspect that this is more a measure of the uncertainty among many voters as opposed to a major change in positions, but does emphasize the weakness of Romney as a candidate.

Gallup has also found that the usual partisan breakdown along religious lines still holds in a race between Obama and Romney:

Mitt Romney leads Barack Obama by 17 percentage points, 54% to 37%, among very religious voters in Gallup’s latest five-day presidential election tracking average. Obama leads by 14 points, 54% to 40%, among the moderately religious, and by 31 points, 61% to 30%, among those who are nonreligious.

If this is viewed purely based upon religion, the results might not make any sense considering Obama’s religious views. There are two additional factors in play. Many Republicans are still fooled by the attacks from the right wing noise machine, with a meaningful number still believing Obama is a Muslim. The other factor is that the concern among many on the religious right is not whether a candidate is religious but whether they will use government to impose their religious views upon others. In this case, perhaps the religious right has a better understanding of the outcome of a Romney presidency than Jimmy Carter shows.

Picture of the Day

This would make more sense than the current motto.

Trusting in science, as a method, has the advantage that if wrong it is self-correcting and accepts change as new information is discovered or if it doesn’t hold up to testing. Scientists might not always be right, but the alternative is going with people who just pull “facts” out of their ass, like creationists, global warming deniers, theologians, and Republicans. (I realize there is redundancy in that list).

Separation of Church and State Makes Rick Santorum Vomit

Rick Santorum attacked the views of John F. Kennedy regarding separation of church and state today. Without realizing it, he was also attacking the views of many of the Founding Fathers, as well as the views of Ronald Reagan. Last year Santorum had said, “Earlier in my political career, I had the opportunity to read the speech, and I almost threw up. You should read the speech.” Kennedy had said:

“I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.”

Santorum defended his remarks on This Week:

Santorum defended his remarks, telling Stephanopoulos that “the first line, first substantive line in the speech, says, ‘I believe in America where the separation of church and state is absolute.’”

“I don’t believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute,” Santorum said. “The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and vision of our country.”

He went on to note that the First Amendment “says the free exercise of religion — that means bringing everybody, people of faith and no faith, into the public square.”

“Kennedy for the first time articulated the vision saying, ‘No, faith is not allowed in the public square. I will keep it separate.’ Go on and read the speech. ‘I will have nothing to do with faith. I won’t consult with people of faith.’ It was an absolutist doctrine that was abhorrent at the time of 1960.”

Later in the interview, Stephanopoulos asked Santorum, “You think you wanted to throw up?”

“Well, yes, absolutely,” Santorum replied. “To say that people of faith have no role in the public square? You bet that makes you throw up. What kind of country do we live that says only people of non-faith can come into the public square and make their case? That makes me throw up.”

Santorum’s claim that separation of church and state means that people of faith are not allowed in the public square is false, and certainly is not what John Kennedy had said.

John Kennedy’s view on the separation of church and state corresponds with the view of the Founding Fathers who created a secular republic, realizing that this is the best way to protect freedom of religion. Santorum’s views are also counter to the views expressed by Ronald Reagan in a speech at Temple Hillel on October 24, 1984 (emphasis mine):

We in the United States, above all, must remember that lesson, for we were founded as a nation of openness to people of all beliefs. And so we must remain. Our very unity has been strengthened by our pluralism. We establish no religion in this country, we command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor will we ever. Church and state are, and must remain, separate. All are free to believe or not believe, all are free to practice a faith or not, and those who believe are free, and should be free, to speak of and act on their belief.

This is just one example of why Ronald Reagan would no longer be welcome in a Republican Party which has moved to the extreme right. Maureen Dowd wrote about the GOP–Ghastly Outdated Party in yesterday’s column, quoting one of many Republican strategists who fear that the Republicans are becoming out of touch:  “Republicans being against sex is not good,” the G.O.P. strategist Alex Castellanos told me mournfully. “Sex is popular.”

Santorum Upset That Obama Agenda Not Based On Bible

In a post yesterday I contrasted the false conservative narrative that liberals support a big government to impose their views upon others with the actual fact that a large segment of the conservative movement actually does see the role of government as imposing their religious views on the country. Rick Santorum repeatedly demonstrates this,  doing so again yesterday in attacking Obama for having an agenda which is not “based on Bible.”

Newt Gingrich has made similar arguments with his attacks on Obama as a “secular socialist.” (Besides being wrong in seeing secular as undesirable, he is wrong in calling Obama a socialist.  Gingrich is using the new conservative definition of socialism as supporting a few percentage point increase in the marginal tax rate of multimillionaires and lower tax rates on the middle class, which has nothing to do with any conventional definition of the term.) Ron Paul has also shown a preference for theocracy, while Mitt Romney is willing to take multiple positions on the issue.

Contrast Santorum and Gingrich with a previous Catholic candidate for president, John F. Kennedy:

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish, where no public official either requests or accept instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials, and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

John Kennedy and Barack Obama are both following in the tradition of the Founding Fathers who understood the importance of creating a secular republic with separation of church and state. Nobody should be able to use the powers of government to impose their religious views upon others.

War on Religion

Plus to the religious right, freedom of religion means the freedom to impose their religious views upon others.

Rick Santorum Has Become Obsessed With The Guillotine

With the GOP primary battle changing, instead of the insanity of Newt Gingrich, we now get to hear more of the insane views of Rick Santorum. We already knew about his desire to use government to regulate the sex lives of Americans and nationalize each woman’s womb, but it goes much further than this. Santorum now has a thing for guillotines–which should be very scary to those who realize how often conservative attacks on liberals are actually cases of conservatives projecting their own faults on liberals, such as the conservative propensity for big government and irresponsible government spending when in power.

Another important distinction between Obama and his Republican opponents is that Obama supports separation of church and state and freedom of religion (the two are inseparable) while the Republicans do not. (So much for their false claims from conservatives of supporting the views of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution.) Sticking with the generally valid premise that conservatives generally attack liberals over matters that conservatives are actually guilty of, the Republicans have fabricated an imaginary war on religious freedom. Santorum has even tied this into health care reform. I guess he thinks that God wants insurance companies to be allowed to deny coverage to those with preexisting conditions and terminate coverage for the sick.

First there was this statement from Santorum yesterday:

They are taking faith and crushing it. Why? Why? When you marginalize faith in America, when you remove the pillar of God-given rights, then what’s left is the French Revolution. What’s left is the government that gives you right, what’s left are no unalienable rights, what’s left is a government that will tell you who you are, what you’ll do and when you’ll do it. What’s left in France became the guillotine. Ladies and gentlemen, we’re a long way from that, but if we do and follow the path of President Obama and his overt hostility to faith in America, then we are headed down that road.

Today Santorum suggested that the left wants public decapitations and that the Affordable Care Act is the first step:

It was a secular revolution on which we relied on the goodness of eacother. This is the left’s view of where America should go. And of course where did France go? To the guillotine. To tyranny. If there are no rights that government needs to respect, then what we see with ObamaCare is just the beginning of what government will do to you.

Beyond all the obvious insanity in Santorum’s statements, he ignores the fact that the Founding Fathers created the United States as the world’s first secular state. We have far too many examples of how the religious fanaticism of people like Rick Santorum leads to the destruction of liberty.