What doth it profit religious demagogues to gain direct mail millions and lose their souls?

Jane Mayer’s New Yorker profile of culture warrior Bryan Fischer — the American Family Association’s professional hate-dispenser — is worth reading in full for it’s portrait of this frighteningly influential bigot.

But I want to highlight this brief tangent, in which Mayer cites religious right strategist Paul Weyrich’s explanation of why the anti-gay agenda has become so important to the culture warriors in the last 10 years.

Weyrich confirms what I’ve often argued here: It’s about money. The religious right is a direct-mail fueled fundraising machine fueled by fear. It sends out millions of fundraising letters designed to create, instill, nurture and exploit fear of The Other. The particular form of that Other-ing depends on which fundraising letters get the best returns:

Advocacy groups like the A.F.A. survive largely on direct-mail contributions. During the Presidency of George W. Bush, evangelicals went from outsiders to insiders, and it was a mixed blessing for them: with Republican ascendancy in Washington came grassroots complacency, slowing fund-raising. In 2003, Wildmon and a dozen or so other top Christian conservatives met to devise ways to energize the faithful. They decided to create a new organization, the Arlington Group, whose sole focus was opposing same-sex marriage.

In 2004, Paul Weyrich, a leading figure of the Christian right, told the Times, “Things have not gone well in the past couple of years,” but added that opposition to gay marriage “appears to be turning things around.” Fund-raising picked up, and socially conservative voters were drawn to the polls. Bush, who had received sixty-eight per cent of the evangelical vote in 2000, got seventy-eight per cent in 2004.

As Jesse Curtis writes:

These Christian leaders … met together to decide where to direct their energies, and their question was not, “Where is the most pain? Where is there injustice? Where can we help?” Their question was “What’s something we can all agree on that will get people stirred up enough to cut a check?”

Yes. The big gay menace has proved to be almost as lucrative as the Satanic baby-killers have been. If you want to understand the centrality of anti-abortion and anti-gay ideology in American evangelicalism, follow the money.

* * * * * * * * *

That’s also, by the way, the answer to Molly Ball’s question at The Atlantic: “Why Are There So Many Conservative Conferences?

There appears to be plenty of audience demand, despite the seeming danger that the marketplace is becoming too crowded. CPAC Chicago drew 2,000 attendees, while 1,500 attended all or part of Faith and Freedom. Tickets for the latter ranged in price from $35 (for students who skipped the banquet) to $224 (for the full program) …

If there is a tinge of profiteering or self-promotion to the welter of political exhibitions, their organizers say it is all in service of the cause. “In spite of the amazing lineup of speakers, the main focus is really on training and equipping grass-roots activists to go back to their respective states, organize at the precinct level, and educate, persuade, mobilize, register and turn out voters,” Faith and Freedom Coalition Chairman Ralph Reed told me. He noted that the Washington conference was supplemented by forums held in half a dozen states. …

These guys are glorified concert promoters.

* * * * * * * * *

In a blog-post following up on her profile of Bryan Fischer, Jane Mayer offers a revealing look at Fischer’s split with a former friend and colleague:

“I was struck by the difference between the ‘pro-family’ values he espouses and some of the choices he has made in his own life,” Mayer writes. Highlighting, in particular, “the broken friendship between Fischer and another conservative Christian activist, Dennis Mansfield.” Mayer writes that in 2000, Mansfield’s:

… hard-edged political ideology collided with heart-breaking realities in his own family. He was running for the Republican Party’s congressional nomination in Idaho, as a conservative Christian candidate. Six days before the Republican primary, his son Nate, who was then a senior in high school, was arrested for drug possession. (Eventually, after a long struggle with addiction, his son died.) The public arrest torpedoed Mansfield’s congressional bid. More importantly, he says, the episode, and the subsequent humility he learned from his son’s struggle, caused him to re-examine the way in which he was using his Christian faith as a cudgel in politics. …

While Mansfield’s family crisis caused him to reassess his earlier self-righteousness, Fischer, he says, reacted to it heartlessly, and told Mansfield that he was no longer fit to be an elder at the church where Fischer was preaching.

… In his blog post about his former friend, Mansfield writes, “When someone wraps their own hate speech in a ‘god blanket’ it makes it easier for a subset of people to accept, and eventually it may even gather a following. The problem is that anyone outside of that subset is turned away from not only that particular subset, but from the entire religion.”

… “Debating the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality in our culture is something that Bryan Fischer is actively engaged in, and has been for over a decade. You know what? I used to be there too. The term ‘righteous anger’ would have been an appropriate term to describe the ferocity with which I would debate this issue, and others. The problem is that it doesn’t work. Somebody who yells and screams makes for great entertainment, but little else. I’ve found that it is exponentially more difficult to shut my mouth, and listen. It is also exponentially more rewarding.”

More rewarding, perhaps, but not as lucrative financially. Just ask Paul Weyrich and Ralph Reed.

Dreams, actions, and DREAM actions

Radley Balko: “That Big Thing Everyone Is Talking About Today

The president said that if you were brought to this country at a young age, by no choice of your own, which is to say that if the United States has been your home for as long as you can remember … we will no longer put you handcuffs, put you on a bus or plane, then dump you in a country where you might have been born, but that is otherwise completely foreign to you.

Somehow, this is controversial?

In a humane, sane world, the country’s collective reaction to today’s announcement would have been, You mean until now, we were actually doing this to people? What the hell is wrong with us?

Diane McWhorter: “The Strange Career of Juan Crow

If Alabama, the cradle of the civil rights movement, can retool Jim Crow as Juan Crow, what have we learned?

Since Alabama has no foreign border and a Latino population of less than 4 percent, the main purpose of H.B. 56 seems to be the id-gratification of tribal dominance and its easy political dividends. A bill co-sponsor, State Senator Scott Beason, was frank about his motive: “when their children grow up and get the chance to vote, they vote for Democrats.”

Mr. Beason, who was later caught referring to blacks as “aborigines,” is from a predominantly white suburb of my hometown, Birmingham, which is gearing up for the 50th anniversary of our civil rights milestones of 1963: fire hoses and police dogs turned on child marchers and a church bombing that killed four black girls.

… The yearlong anniversary is shaping up to be Groundhog Day. Among other injustices, H.B. 56 bars undocumented residents from pursuing work or entering into any state-related business transactions or private contracts, depriving them of basic dignities and due process. When the Justice Department investigated the state for demanding checks on schoolchildren, the defiant reaction of Alabama’s attorney general prompted comparisons to George C. Wallace’s 1963 “Stand in the Schoolhouse Door” at the University of Alabama.

Melissa Harris-Perry: “Fear Is Driving America’s Politics, But Hope Is the Only Antidote

My enslaved grandmother who was sold on a street corner in Richmond, Virginia, believed in God. Now, I’m not asking you to believe in God; I’m asking you to think about this: This is a woman who never knew anything but slavery for herself, never knew anything but slavery for everyone she’d ever been related to, never expected anything but slavery for all of the people she would be related to in the future. There was no empirical evidence that any being cared about her circumstances. There was no empirical evidence that there was a loving God who had any power. And if there was a loving God, he was pretty pitiful, or if he was powerful, he didn’t seem to love her.

I’m not asking you to believe in God or to accept any kind of supreme being. I’m asking you to think about the faith that is associated with the hope that is not necessarily rooted in the empirical realities you see around you right at this moment, that says that we can still be part of something that is bigger than ourselves, and something that we cannot necessarily see at the moment, but simply requires us not to be afraid of each other. Because it’s our fear of each other that makes us exceptionally easy to divide.

Colin Harris: “Why Do We Fear Others Who Are Not Like Us?

The gospel message seems pretty clear on what to do with the “other” – see the face of Christ in their faces: “I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me …”

If people stopped responding with passive complicity to carefully crafted messages designed to “otherize” those whose needs deserve fair treatment and justice and those whose voices speak for them, certain media outlets and popular personalities might soon be out of business.

In the face of powerful forces that depend on otherization for the success of their agenda, would it be reasonable to hope that communities of faith might model and speak for a perspective that sees diversity and otherness as an opportunity for enrichment of our community rather than as a threat of contamination?

NRA: The best coffee at O’Hare

Nicolae: The Rise of Antichrist, pp. 11-17

Rayford Steele is racing to escape the chaos and random violence of the war-torn Midwest, fleeing to the safety of Iraq.

That sounds like it ought to be exciting. Particularly when you add in the fact that he’s traveling with Nicolae Carpathia, the individual epicenter of World War III. Nicolae is either the source or the target of all the perhaps-nuclear violence erupting across the world, so Rayford’s adventure here ought to be a thrilling, mile-a-minute chase scene.

Alas, the reality here is much more disappointing. Their race from airstrip to airstrip turns out to resemble — and to be just as exciting as — any other bit of cross-country air travel involving multiple connecting flights. The perhaps-nuclear disruptions of WWIII come across as no more troubling than uncooperative weather.

That’s the impression one gets when Nicolae asks for an update on the war from the walkie-talkie guard (same one, he’s still around). It seems more like he’s asking about winter snowstorms or a series of thunder storms.

Carpathia leveled his eyes at the man. “What is the news? What is happening?”

“Uh, nothing much different, sir. Lots of activity and destruction in many major cities.”

… “Is this activity largely centered in the Midwest and East Coast?” the potentate asked.

The guard nodded. “And some in the South,” he added.

“Virtually nothing on the West Coast then,” Carpathia said, more a statement than a question. … “How about Dallas/Ft. Worth?” Carpathia asked.

“DFW suffered a hit,” the guard said. “Only one major runway is still open. Nothing’s coming in, but lots of planes are heading out of there.”

Carpathia glanced at Rayford. “And the military strip nearby, where my pilot was certified on the 757?”

“I believe that’s still operational, sir,” the guard said.

So there we have it. Our itinerary is established and over the next several pages that itinerary will be followed exactly as described. Helicopter from highway to airstrip. Learjet from airstrip to airstrip near Dallas. Thus the questions that might have afforded a bit of suspense here — Will they get away? How will they get away? — are answered at the outset, deflating any tension the scene might have had.

Jerry Jenkins makes a half-hearted attempt to restore some tension with a bit of business involving Carpathia wearing a clumsy disguise. It doesn’t help.

That disguise is provided by a new character, Leon Fortunato, introduced here as “a sycophant from the New Babylon office.”

Actually, “introduced” overstates the case. Fortunato just sort of shows up without explanation or description. His few lines of dialogue here and his even fewer actions are purely functional, and we’re given no sense that he is an important character in Jenkins’ story and in Tim LaHaye’s “Bible prophecy” check list. (That sentence supplies more foreshadowing than Jenkins bothered with here.)

[Read more...]

Oblivious to Oceans

They’ve bought the bullets and there’s no one left to shoot …

Oblivious,” Aztec Camera
Obsession,” Animotion
Occasionally,” Melissa Etheridge
The Ocean,” The Choir
The Ocean,” Tegan & Sara
Ocean and Atlantic,” Mayday Parade
Ocean Breathes Salty,” Modest Mouse
Ocean Size Love,” Leigh Nash
Oceans of Venus,” Dengue Fever

This is a pretty narrow range, so let’s also include every “Ocean” song we’ve got, whether or not it’s the first word in the title. For me that adds:

1000 Oceans,” Alison Crowe
Blue Blue Ocean,” Echo and the Bunnymen
Rolling Ocean,” Johnny Clegg

This is what I’d like to do with the Dengue Fever song “Oceans of Venus.” I would need a large shopping mall that has both a comprehensive PA system and security cameras everywhere. Pick some random, unassuming-looking shopper. The song starts playing as soon as they walk into the mall. It plays along whenever they’re walking. When they stop, it stops. When they start walking again, it starts playing again. I want to see how long it takes them to notice, and how they respond once they do.

Pope Jim Garlow I joins the Münchhausen martyrdom brigade

Jim Garlow is a silly, silly man.

We’ve written here before about the Münchhausen martyrs — privileged people who prefer the self-congratulatory fantasy of persecution. And, as Kyle Mantyla reports, Garlow is an extravagantly ridiculous example of this.

Speaking at the Family Research Council’s “Watchmen on the Wall” conference (the name of which is, itself, a gloriously pompous example of Münchhausen-martyrdom fatuousness), Garlow denounced same-sex marriage. In doing so, he also unwittingly denounced a host of biblical heroes, saying that “Nature has dictated what the Bible clearly affirms, and that is, one man, one woman” as the only acceptable form of marriage.

Then — after condemning Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, Gideon, Moses and many others as the enemies of biblical marriage — Garlow turned his sights on President Obama for speaking in support of marriage equality:

Maybe a basic 101 of Christianity, it would be wise for [the president] to know, that throughout historic, orthodox, authentic, biblical Christianity — and there’s no other kind of Christianity other than biblical Christianity — marriage has always been defined as one man, one woman.

Pope Garlow I wants you to know that he, and he alone, is the arbiter of who is and who is not a real, true Christian. President Obama, by citing the Golden Rule and the words of Jesus, has set himself beyond the bounds of Christianity acceptable unto Pope Garlow I. Obama, therefore, is not a “historic, orthodox, authentic, biblical Christian.” And that, Pope Garlow I says, means he is no Christian at all, because “there’s no other kind of Christianity” than that taught and affirmed by this wannabe pope and his gaggle of supporters.

OK, you’re thinking, so far we’ve seen that Jim Garlow is a self-righteous, judgmental jackwagon, but when do we get to the ridiculous martyrdom business?

That’s next. Garlow and his cohorts, he said, are:

Like the Colonial pastor who called his congregation to go stand at the bridge. According to the story, he took off his vestments, he marched out with his musket. The men of the church followed him. He stood at a bridge watching the British troops advance towards him. And he turned to his men and he said, “Here we die.”

And that is where we are here. This is one we go to the mat for. If necessary, here we die.

Does Garlow really believe a word of this? Is he so caught up in the paranoid delusion of his own martyrdom fantasy that he actually imagines that some vague government entity is trying to kill him? (Or, perhaps, to pin him in a wrestling match?)

Because no one is. Garlow and his ilk are not in any danger. His physical safety is not in jeopardy. And his constitutional rights — the same rights he proudly seeks to deny others — are not in jeopardy.

People like Garlow like to pretend they’re being courageous by spouting this kind of thing, but, again, if this is what constitutes courage, then Fred Phelps is the bravest man in the world.

As mean-spirited as Garlow is in his politics and his theology, Fred Phelps is far worse. Garlow wants to deny LGBT people the right to marry, the right to serve in the military and the right to employment protection, but Phelps wants them all to burn in Hell. Garlow thinks he knows the secret to who is an “authentic, biblical Christian” and who is an “apostate,” but Phelps draws that circle even tighter, excluding everyone who isn’t a member of his congregation– meaning everyone who isn’t a member of his family.

But give Phelps credit for at least this much: He doesn’t pretend that his cruel beliefs make him some kind of martyr. Fred Phelps doesn’t pretend that Obama’s redcoats are marching across some bridge to kill him. He doesn’t pretend that he’s somehow being persecuted because he knows he is not. And Phelps doesn’t pretend that his “religious liberty” to say the most hatefully bigoted things he can imagine is somehow being threatened, because he knows it is not.

So if Garlow really believes his own hype, let me reassure him:

Mr. Garlow, look at Fred Phelps. He is, like you, a free man enjoying his freedom in the Land of the Free. His religious liberty is unfettered — just like yours.

So relax. You’re not on a bridge with a musket facing down a powerful army. No one is coming to take away your rights or your freedoms or your safety. You’re not persecuted, you’re privileged. Try to enjoy it.

And maybe try not to be such a jerk to other people who don’t get to enjoy all the same rights, freedoms and safety you do, OK?

‘Bible Believers’ who do not know, or care, what the Bible says

Joe Jervis relays a Twitter exchange between Anderson Cooper and some other Joe:

 

For those who can’t read that image, the guy tells Cooper that “Jesus calls homosexuality sin and calls them [sic] to repent.” Cooper replies, “actually, Joe, factually speaking, Jesus never mentioned anything about gays.”

It’s disappointing that some folks who want to call upon a Bible vs. Gays appeal to authority don’t realize that. Many do, of course — plenty of anti-gay conservatives are extremely well-versed (pun intended) in what the Bible does and does not actually say about their favorite topic.

But then there are people like this guy who seem to have no idea. They’ll tell you that “Jesus calls homosexuality sin” or that “the Bible says abortion is wrong” despite neither claim being true.

If Jesus had anything at all to say about “homosexuality” or about abortion, then none of his followers considered it something worth recording. In the Bible, Jesus is completely silent on those two topics — the same two things that many American Christians seem to believe are of paramount importance.

The problem seems to be that these folks like the idea of the Bible more than the actual Bible we actually have. This idea of the Bible can be cited as an authority against gays or against abortion without ever needing to consult the actual Bible.

Those of us who read the actual Bible find only a tiny handful of passages dealing with homosexuality — the so-called “clobber verses” condemning it, the meaning and application of which is open to dispute. And as for abortion, there’s nothing anywhere in the Bible that can even be twisted into a “clobber verse” condemning it. (Although very recent politicized translations have tried to manufacture one.)

Cooper’s patient response to his Jesus-invoking critic is commendable, but probably pointless. Cooper is dealing here with someone who invokes Jesus and the Bible as an appeal to authority, but who doesn’t really know or care what Jesus or the Bible have to say. When people like that shout about “Jesus says …” or “the Bible says …” it doesn’t help to ask where, or to point out what Jesus or the Bible actually say, because such people don’t care. They just like pretending that some unquestionable authority is on their side, because they think that this makes their authority unquestionable too.

See also: Tea-party appeals to the idea of the Constitution, which tend to be wholly ignorant of, and unconcerned with, the actual content of the actual Constitution.

* * * * * * * * *

For another good — or, rather, appalling — illustration of the way that many people who regard themselves as “Bible Believers” do not seem to know or care what those Bibles actually say, see this report from Leah Nelson at HateWatch, “Armed With Pig’s Head, Christians Confront Michigan Muslims“:

Muslims in Dearborn, Mich., were once again targeted for their beliefs on Friday when a group of protesters calling themselves the “Bible Believers” confronted celebrants at the city’s annual Arab International Festival with a pig’s head on a spike and signs decrying Islam as a false religion, the Detroit Free Press reports.

In addition to the pig’s head – presumably intended to offend observant Muslims, who do not eat pork – Bible Believers reportedly carried signs calling Islam “a religion of blood and murder” and describing the Islamic prophet Muhammad as a “liar,” “false prophet,” “murderer” and “child molesting pervert.”

… Bible Believers is headed by Ruben Israel Chavez, a self-described “street preacher” from Los Angeles who runs the website Official Street Preachers, on which he rails against “homo sex,” Mormons, “drunkards,” Mardi Gras, “Pot Smoking Devils,” Billy Graham, and Oprah Winfrey, among others.

“Among others.”

Writing for Christianity Today, Jeremy Weber refers to the so-called Bible Believers’ outreach as “an evangelism FAIL.” Weber also notes that Arab Christian leaders in Dearborn have asked these purportedly Christian outside groups to knock it off with this stuff already.

Arab Christian leaders in Dearborn criticize such efforts by outside groups, including a high-profile 2010 incident involving Acts 17 Apologetics, as ill-informed and counter-productive. One reason: The majority of Arab Americans are Christians not Muslims.

I would clarify that last point: That many of the people being harassed by these belligerent “evangelists” are themselves Christian is “one reason” that such harassment is ironic and darkly comic. But it’s not “one reason” why such harassment is wrong.

Crusaders of one form or another have always wound up attacking just as many fellow-Christians as the Muslims they first intended to attack. Such behavior is wrong for a host of reasons that do not depend on the religious identity of its victims. It is no less wrong when  directed at Muslims than when directed at Christians. It’s just wrong, period.

* * * * * * * * *

Here’s a bet: In the bit above about the Anderson Cooper tweet, I mention that Jesus had nothing to say about homosexuality and abortion. At no point did I attempt to leap from that factual statement to the unsupported conclusion that therefore Jesus must have approved of both. But I’m betting that won’t stop at least one person from criticizing that factual reference to Jesus’ silence as an “argument from silence.”

This seems to be one of those phrases memorized by certain people out of the Dirty Hungarian Phrasebook of Fallacies. They seem to understand just enough of the idea to think that it means any mention of silence constitutes an opportunity to whip out this smart-sounding phrase and use it to denounce the mentioner.

Second bet: Someone will criticize that bit above as an “argument from silence” even despite my making the prophylactic bet in the previous paragraphs.

Smart people saying smart things

Samir Chopra: “Misery Needs Company: The American Worker’s Hostility Toward Unions

The correct response to this from a non-unionized worker should be, “Damn, that sounds like a sweet deal; how do I get a piece of the action?” At which point, he responds favorably the next time a union organizer contacts him, fills out the election card, and welcomes the NLRB to make sure the NLRA is properly implemented in his workplace.

Of course, none of that happens. The average American worker’s response is, “How dare people organize themselves into collective bargaining units to resist the almost unlimited powers of employers and ensure a better deal for themselves?” At which point, he throws his weight behind every anti-union force that he can find, thus conspiring against his own economic interests.

Todd Stiefel: “What Do Atheists Stand For?

James Madison, pretty good guy, he has a great quote on this. He says, “Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christianity, in exclusion of all others?” So, I ask you, if this is a Christian country, this is a Christian nation, is it a Methodist nation? Is it a Catholic nation? Is it a Protestant nation? Which one is it because the reason we have separation of church and state in this country is because the Protestants and the Catholics were killing each other for centuries. And, our Founding Fathers knew that we must protect ourselves from religion so that this Republic can thrive.

So, I would like you all to imagine for a moment what it would feel like. What would it feel like if you were in a court of law and a judge said to you that, “Islam is the one true faith?” That’s exactly how it feels to a Protestant student in a public school when the teacher tells them that the Pope in infallible. That’s how it feels to an atheist in North Carolina when there is a prayer to Jesus in the name of the government given before a North Carolina Senate session. And, that’s how feels for a Catholic who is told by an Army chaplain that Evangelical is the correct form of Christianity. Don’t let any representative of the government tell you that your religious beliefs are wrong. You are not “spiritually unfit!” Your faith is not the wrong form of Christianity. You have the right to believe whatever you want to in this country.

Garry Wills: “The Curse of Political Purity

The independents, too ignorant or inexperienced to recognize these basic facts, are the people most susceptible to lying flattery. They are called the good folk too inner-directed to follow a party line or run with the herd. They are like the idealistic imperialists “with clean hands” in Graham Greene’s The Quiet American — they should wear leper bells to warn people of their vicinity.

The etherialists who are too good to stoop toward the “lesser evil” of politics — as if there were ever anything better than the lesser evil there — naively assume that if they just bring down the current system, or one part of it that has disappointed them, they can build a new and better thing of beauty out of the ruins. Of course they never get the tabula rasa on which to draw their ideal schemes. What they normally do is damage the party closest to their professed ideals.

… All these brave “independents” say that there is not a dime’s worth of difference between the two parties, and claim they can start history over, with candidates suddenly become as good as they are themselves. What they do is give us the worst of evils.