Tuesday, November 20, 2007

I Am Holier Than Thou! (Said One Republican to the Other)

Looks like those holier than thou Republican presidential candidates can’t keep their holy feet out of their holy mouths. Let’s see what this inauspicious crowd has been up to lately:

Three of the 10 Republican candidates have publicly proclaimed that they don’t believe in evolution. Of course, one of these three “wise men,” Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas has since dropped out of the race. Good riddance. The other two bozos, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, and Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado, are still slogging it out. I wonder if they "believe" in other science like nuclear technology?

Then there is Mitt the Mormon. The Mittster seems to be trying to paint himself as the “moral” candidate. He has changed his position on gay marriage and he has indicated that he loves reading the Gideon bible. Confusing, isn’t it? What about the book of Mormon? Oh, no, we can’t have the mindless Christians out there finding out that Jesus visited the US can we? “The values of my faith are much like, or are identical to, the values of other faiths that have a Judeo-Christian philosophical background,” he said at a campaign event in New Hampshire. Well, I kind of agree with him there, I s'pose, because there is a lot of craziness in all of these faiths.

Then we have John McCain’s Mom trashing the Mormons - - although, somewhat to his credit, McCain quickly said that the “views of my mother are not necessarily mine.” Which leaves the question, just what does McCain think about Mormonism? I can guess, because he has stated on the record that the president should be a Christian because the nation was founded on Christian principles. And I can guess, too, that like most Christians he wouldn't categorize Mormons as Christians.

But let’s face it, Mormonism is about as whack-a-doo as you can get (this side of Scientology). OK, I think that most religions are nutso, but at least they are sufficiently ancient that tradition and culture play a big role in their on-going proliferation. To be a Mormon you’d have to be pretty much out to lunch. Mormonism teaches that an American named Joseph Smith was a prophet who received visions from God about how to restore the true and original Christian church. This happened in the 1800s. He supposedly found gold plates that outlined the story, but he wouldn’t let anyone see them. He dictated the book of Mormon by putting the gold plates into a hat and reading them with a magic stone. No, I am not making this shit up. There were around 1.7 million Mormons in 1960. Today there are 13 million. Damn, people are gullible. Enough about Mormon (but if you want to read more about it I heartily recommend Jon Krakauer’s excellent book Under The Banner of Heaven).

Rudy Giuliani is probably the least religious of the motley Republican crew. But he recently received the endorsement of Pat Robertson. And he got this endorsement despite his positions supporting abortion rights and gay rights. Seems the Republicans are desperate for a candidate they think stands at least a fighting chance against Hillary Clinton. But Giuliani is still a scary bastard - mostly by whom he chooses to associate with. Example? New York Rep. Pete King, a Giuliani adviser, proclaimed that there are "too many mosques in this country." So I guess it is cool for a Christian religious fanatic to bash a muslim religious fanatic?

The bottom line though is that none of these fuckers are as scary as George W. Bush, who thinks he talks to god. So even if one of the Democrats does not win (I so hope they do!) the country should be better off in late January 2009.


coreydbarbarian said...

yeah, but none of 'em are quite as holy as me! (tongue in cheek, i promise).

personally, i've never seen an election (or pre-election hoopla) that was quite this entertaining. the electorate is clearly ready 4 a big change from dubya. on all sides of the political sphere, ya know?

staying on topic (rnc candidates), let me just say -

giuliani's ONLY advantage is his primo real estate location, i.e. in the warm cockles of our hearts, right next 2 those 9-11 memories / wounds we've all been licking. if ol' rudy gets his parties nomination, that will change.

romney is still the strongest / slickest candidate, but he CANNOT win over the evangelical vote. his mormonism, however, is less alarming 2 me than his seemingly inconsistent moral code.

thompson? fred's bid, while amusing, is a clear sign of desperation among republicans. which is pretty amusing all by itself. fred is a joke.

huckabee? best candidate 4 evangelicals, maybe all christian conservatives. only his name is "unelectable", so they won't try. a good man (from my p.o.v.), but very misguided.

mccain? best candidate 4 rnc 2 nominate, but they won't see it that way. much more credible than any other. anybody notice how he never got credit 4 "da surge" after it started 2 help the situation? weird, huh? (also, i'm not implying the military surge has improved the political prospects of iraq, only that the temporary surge has temporarily reduced the death rate in iraq).

tancredo? he should've dropped out with brownback. somebody go tell him, ok? i'll wait here.

then there's my man ron paul. he's the only republican candidate that i have any respect 4, and the only one i could possibly cast a vote 4. but alas, the libertarian wing of the republican party is dead and gone (or really close 2 it), and the religious right is still in charge. 4 now. so paul prolly has no chance at all.

p.s. 2 all my "reason-able" friends, i am very glad 2 join you again! and 2 csm, i like the improvements to the site, like the traffic monitor. rather handy!

csm said...

Glad to see you again CoreyD. Isn't it interesting how Giuliani milks 9/11 buy many of the folks impacted most directly by 9/11 can't stand the man? E.g) NY firmen oppose Rudy and Rudy = urban legend.

And I recently read an article lambasting Ron Paul as inconsistent (can't find the link or I'd include it). It was illuminating, but did not dissuade me that Paul would indeed be interesting!

And I'm glad you like the site!

derF said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
derF said...

Yeah, good to hear from you again. I've thought of you at each opportunity to put that HTML formatting lesson to work.

coreydbarbarian said...

awwww! not 2 b 2 mushy, (but as an honest reciprication) i have pondered your welfare each time i've read any gandhi.

(true story. i also wonder about my first ethics professor everytime i review kant, so you're in good company!)

"i like your christ. i do not like your christians. they are so unlike your christ." -- gandhi

Ceroill said...

Hey, coreyd! Good to see you again. I agree, Mormonism is one of the wackier ones.

derF said...

Identified with Gandhi... WOW?!? That's scary. When I think how second generation advocates -- like Christ v Christians or a social-democrat such as Milton Freidman v Libertarians -- appropriate and then convert the message and meaning of esteemed movements, I can't help but think that I should quickly distance myself.

Bye the way, I'm unclear on Ron Paul's position on 'Net Neutrality' or waiving the tradition of pardoning past-Presidents. Any insights?

csm said...

Evidently Ron Paul opposes net neutrality - check it out here

csm said...

Oh, and I found the Ron Paul link I mentioned earlier about his being inconsistent. Not sure I trust the journalist as I haven't done any research on her, but the article is interesting. It is called Don't Believe the Ron Paul Hype.

I post it here for discussion only - not as an endorsement of the article.

csm said...

A quick Google search of Mona Charen, the author of that Ron Paul article, reveal her as a neo-con. So I guess I am not surprised about her stance on Mr. Paul (but, of course, her claims, if verified, may still be valid).

derF said...

Thanks, that was insightful. Ron Paul doesn't like an open internet and neo-cons don't like him (though not for his views on public air-space). Criticism from the folks who heralded us into unending war seems like a pretty good recommendation. For some reason, though, I'm left with the impression that he is just another National Socialist. Perhaps one that realizes the public isn't buying war no more.

coreydbarbarian said...

jeez. you guys have been busy!

derf, i won't hold you accountable for any abuses of gandhi's ideas. ;)

re: ron paul
while i definitely support net neutrality, it doesn't surprise me much that paul might oppose the measure. libertarians generally oppose gov't intrusions.

i just wish the liberty-minded/anti-gov't crowd could realize that sometimes minorities actually NEED protection from the powerful. they seem to oppose ALL gov't on principle, ignoring history. the comments attached 2 your 1st ron paul link were a lil disheartening.

as 4 neocons opposing ron paul, i agree; that is a convincing endorsement 4 me. when that crowd hates him, i like him more.

also, has this ever happened 2 you?

yesterday morn, i took a blogger 2 task on the abc message boards. he/she was urging a boycott of the new film, the golden compass. (athiest, god-hatin' stuff. y'all wouldn't be interested. ;)

anyways, i criticized abc (and the rest of the media) 4 their take on the issue, and within 45 minutes the entire comment thread had been wiped clean! 2nd or 3rd time abc has done that 2 me.

so much 4 freedom of speech on the corporate dime, huh?

Ceroill said...

Coreyd- Ah,yes, I've heard about the Golden Compass 'controversy'. All rather silly, to my mind.

csm said...

I had not heard anything about the Golden Compass controversy, but I did a bit of scouting around the web and it is kinda interesting. Here is a link (from Fox News of all places).

I hope the film is a success and it causes xians to buy Pullman's books for their kids. That'd be a hoot!

Ceroill said...

Nah, it'll 'cause' a rash of protests and rabid very public claims of the movie being anti-xtian, blasphemous, etc, etc.

coreydbarbarian said...

"There should be something for freethinking children."

thanks 4 a gr8 link, csm. and on faux news, no less. wow.

check out the previews 4 the film if ya get a chance. them polar bears look cool. :)

my problem is with catholics, really. they (like evangelicals) believe their version of christianity is the ONLY version that counts. and, true 2 form, they would like 2 quash any and all voices that don't harmonize with theirs.

i complained about abc & cnn allowing bill donahue 2 frame the issue; he says, "they attack christianity!" and the networks parrot his claim, eager 2 attract those elusive christian viewers.

from what i've gathered, the books feature bishops and a pope as bad guys, authority figures exclusive 2 catholicism. who is pullman attacking?

me personally, i think he meant 2 attack an idea, not a church.

final thought: if the whiney-butts coulda left it alone, i woulda been content watching the film.
now i'm gonna read the books. if they're good, my nephews get 'em next.

Ceroill said...

As I understand things, the movie has been watered down a bit from the original story. I think in the film the ultimate bad guy is a corrupt deity, but not necessarily The Deity.I haven't read the book myself, so I can't say for certain.