motherjones:

Anti-abortionist running against Rep. Keith Ellison runs anti-Islam TV ads:

“Do you really want someone representing you who swears an oath on a Quran? A book that undermines our Constitution and says you should be killed?”

Um. You know what undermines our Constitution? Religious tests for office holders.

(Source: minnesotaindependent.com)


Image Text: If you fire a Portal gun through the door of the wardrobe, space and time knot together, which leads to a frustrated Aslan trying to impart Christian morality to the Space sphere.

Image Text: If you fire a Portal gun through the door of the wardrobe, space and time knot together, which leads to a frustrated Aslan trying to impart Christian morality to the Space sphere.

Dan Savage’s message to liberal Christians

(Source: youtube.com)

ChristianityToday:

Opposition to Interracial Marriage Lingers Among Evangelicals
This month marks the 44th anniversary of the Loving v. Virginia, the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down state laws prohibiting interracial marriage. A 1968 Gallup poll found three-quarters of whites disapproved of a whites and blacks marrying. Today, opposition to interracial marriage is low, but it still lingers. Among religious groups, evangelicals remain the most opposed to interracial marriage, according to a poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press (Pew).
Pew’s February Political Typology Poll asked people about recent trends in American society. Pew asked if “more people of different races marrying each other” was good or bad society. Overall, only nine percent of Americans said it was bad for society. However, 16 percent of white evangelicals said this, more than twice the opposition found among other Americans (7 percent). The survey found that 27 percent of Americans overall said more interracial marriage was good for society, compared to 17 percent of evangelicals.
Evangelicals may have the most negative view of interracial marriage, but there is also opposition among white mainline Protestants (13 percent) and Catholics (10 percent). Statistically, the percentages in these traditions who saw interracial marriage as bad for society were about the same as for evangelicals.
The views of white Christians stand in stark contrast to two other groups: black Protestants and those with no religion. Only three percent of either group said interracial marriage was bad for society. Eight-in-ten respondents said the trend “doesn’t make much difference.”  Those who are not religious were more optimistic, with 38 percent saying it was good for society.
Such a poor view of interracial marriage comes despite its near universal acceptance—even celebration—among evangelical leaders even as they acknowledge sensitivity to the issue. For example, in a 2005 sermon, John Piper of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis said, “interracial marriage is not only permitted by God but is a positive good in our day. That is, it is not just to be tolerated, but celebrated.”  He followed this by noting that the issue remained “extremely controversial since it is opposed by people from all sides.”
Bob Jones University removed its rule against interracial dating in 2000; the university apologized for this and other racist policies in 2005.
Today, the issue of interracial marriage is most likely to be breached during debates over same-sex marriage. Ted Olson and David Boies released a video this month for the American Federation for Equal Rights (AFER). The video features the two lawyers (who argued successfully against California’s Proposition 8) discussing Loving v. Virginia as the foundation for the argument for same-sex marriage.
Focus on the Family’s Glenn Stanton said the video is emotionally persuasive but makes an invalid comparison between interracial marriage and same-sex marriage.
“Segregation was a profound social evil. Full stop,” Stanton said. “Loving v. Virginia struck down a legal regime, peculiar to certain parts of the nation, that was wholly racist at its core … It was about nothing more than the racial purity of whites and all the ugliness that implies.”

ChristianityToday:

Opposition to Interracial Marriage Lingers Among Evangelicals

This month marks the 44th anniversary of the Loving v. Virginia, the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that struck down state laws prohibiting interracial marriage. A 1968 Gallup poll found three-quarters of whites disapproved of a whites and blacks marrying. Today, opposition to interracial marriage is low, but it still lingers. Among religious groups, evangelicals remain the most opposed to interracial marriage, according to a poll by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press (Pew).

Pew’s February Political Typology Poll asked people about recent trends in American society. Pew asked if “more people of different races marrying each other” was good or bad society. Overall, only nine percent of Americans said it was bad for society. However, 16 percent of white evangelicals said this, more than twice the opposition found among other Americans (7 percent). The survey found that 27 percent of Americans overall said more interracial marriage was good for society, compared to 17 percent of evangelicals.

Evangelicals may have the most negative view of interracial marriage, but there is also opposition among white mainline Protestants (13 percent) and Catholics (10 percent). Statistically, the percentages in these traditions who saw interracial marriage as bad for society were about the same as for evangelicals.

The views of white Christians stand in stark contrast to two other groups: black Protestants and those with no religion. Only three percent of either group said interracial marriage was bad for society. Eight-in-ten respondents said the trend “doesn’t make much difference.”  Those who are not religious were more optimistic, with 38 percent saying it was good for society.

Such a poor view of interracial marriage comes despite its near universal acceptance—even celebration—among evangelical leaders even as they acknowledge sensitivity to the issue. For example, in a 2005 sermon, John Piper of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis said, “interracial marriage is not only permitted by God but is a positive good in our day. That is, it is not just to be tolerated, but celebrated.”  He followed this by noting that the issue remained “extremely controversial since it is opposed by people from all sides.”

Bob Jones University removed its rule against interracial dating in 2000; the university apologized for this and other racist policies in 2005.

Today, the issue of interracial marriage is most likely to be breached during debates over same-sex marriage. Ted Olson and David Boies released a video this month for the American Federation for Equal Rights (AFER). The video features the two lawyers (who argued successfully against California’s Proposition 8) discussing Loving v. Virginia as the foundation for the argument for same-sex marriage.

Focus on the Family’s Glenn Stanton said the video is emotionally persuasive but makes an invalid comparison between interracial marriage and same-sex marriage.

“Segregation was a profound social evil. Full stop,” Stanton said. “Loving v. Virginia struck down a legal regime, peculiar to certain parts of the nation, that was wholly racist at its core … It was about nothing more than the racial purity of whites and all the ugliness that implies.”

"On Monday, Bachmann didn’t talk a lot about her religion. She didn’t have to—she knows how to signal it in ways that go right over secular heads. In criticizing Obama’s Libya policy, for example, she said, “We are the head and not the tail.” The phrase comes from Deuteronomy 28:13: “The Lord will make you the head and not the tail.” As Rachel Tabachnick has reported, it’s often used in theocratic circles to explain why Christians have an obligation to rule."

Michele Bachmann’s Unrivaled Extremism


(via cheatsheet)

(via cheatsheet)

"Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly, as I have said, the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes….A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men."

— Bertrand Russell, Why I am not a Christian

(via lisapunky)

We should have seen it coming. After all, what did Glenn Beck do just minutes after being dumped by Fox back in April? He announced that he’d be keynoting the annual conference of Christians United for Israel, an alliance of end-times minded Christian congregations headed by pastor John Hagee.

And now, just days after returning from his own fact-finding mission to Israel, Beck has announced that (after making his own movie about Israel in a few weeks) he will convene a “Rally to Restore Courage” in Israel this August.

Beck explained the rally as a latter-day crusade to save the Holy Land from the Palestinians: “Things in Israel are going to get bad, and there are forces all over the globe… They are going to attack the center of our faith, our common faith, and that is Jerusalem. it won’t be with bullets and bombs. it will be with a two-state solution that cuts off Jerusalem.”

Beck called upon his followers to gather in Israel this August. Because that’s one thing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict needs: Glenn Beck and his fans wading into the middle of it.

Here at RD, Anthea Butler plumbed Beck’s motivations:

Although a Mormon, Beck’s beliefs appear here to be more aligned with conservative Christian beliefs regarding the end-times, and a particular reading of the Book of Revelation that lends itself to raptures, dispensations, and popular culture depictions like Left Behind and A Thief in the Night. Unlike Harold Camping, who just wants his calculations to be correct for once, Beck wants to write himself into latter days history… Beck’s statement, ‘I’ve been asked to stand in Jerusalem’ suggests that he may be conflating his role with that of the two witnesses of Revelation 11:3.”

Actually, Mormons may diverge from Hagee on some details of the last days (Mormon theology is usually characterized as premillenialist) but we do read the Book of Revelation. And in Mormon end-times scenarios, we don’t call them “witnesses”: they are described as apostles, or even prophets. Invading armies of Gentiles bent on the destruction of Israel will kill the two apostles, and their murdered bodies will lie dead in the streets of Jerusalem for three days without a decent burial. And then the Mount of Olives will split open. And then Jesus will return. That’s how Beck’s guru, the LDS ultra-conservative Cleon Skousen described it in 1972.

Is Beck making himself out to be a prophet? It wouldn’t be the first time that he danced with prophetic rhetoric. By now, though, we should all know that Beck is less interested in plying his own virtues than in plugging into the fears of his followers. After burning through conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory over the last few years, Beck is looking to wreak havoc in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process by exploiting the most powerful fear-generating narrative of them all: the apocalypse.

"It absolutely boggles my mind and intrigues me no end that there actually people out there in the world operating under the belief that the End of Times is near, and as a result, you should probably give them some money. And I don’t mean to be flip toward those who genuinely believe that Christ is returning to Earth at some point, but anything that involves riding around the country in a van with a megaphone is hard to take seriously."

That’s The Washington Post’s Clinton Yates on doomsday predictors and the improbability that the world ending will be foreseen by some free-spirited, tie-die-wearing, non-showering gypsy. Members of Family Radio’s “Project Caravan” say the end of days will be May 21, 2011 … but the accuracy of this prediction is doubtful. Whew! That means there’s still time to craft my opus: a 300-page critical analysis on Saved by the Bell.

- CT

[The Washington Post]

(via the20washington)

From the Washington Post article:

On Thursday, Brenda Forester, visiting from Michigan, got into a somewhat heated encounter with one of Camping’s followers, citing a passage from the Bible that says nobody knows when Christ will return.

“He will return,” Forester said, “but not on May 21st.”

Another man was so perturbed by the May 21 message that he brought over a woman he found on the street who needed money. He asked whether the Camping followers would give her some cash, because there was no need for them to keep money with the world ending. They did not.

(Source: the20washington)

"As people of faith, Muslims, Christians, Jews and other faiths, we do not celebrate the loss of any life like the way you celebrate the win of your hometown team in a championship. Rather we hope we can use this opportunity to reflect on the means with which we seek to achieve our national security aims in the world, as well as support those who seek their own freedoms and rights in their home countries."

Mazen Asbahi, boardmember Council of Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago

theheartacheandthehope:

stfuconservatives:

matchstickmaker:

Boom.

ROASTED
HAPPY ZOMBIE JESUS DAY!

HAPPY ZOMBIE JESUS DAY!

sixbucks:

fleetfootedfox:

thetart:

Christianity and Capitalism

Overall more Americans believe that Christian values are at odds with  capitalism and the free market than believe they are compatible. This  pattern also holds among Christians. Among Christians in the U.S., only  38% believe capitalism and the free market are consistent with Christian  values while 46% believe the two are at odds. There are significant  differences by gender, party and income.
As it happens, they are absolutely correct; the Gospels are  incredibly short on issues we associate with modern “values voting” —  abortion and homosexuality, mostly — and incredibly long on reverence  for the poor and disdain for the wealthy. Of course, that hasn’t made  much of a difference to the United States, which through its history,  has combined religious piety with stunning accumulations of wealth.  That said, there is a good explanation for the particular willingness  of Republicans/Tea Partiers to see congruence between Christianity and  capitalism: in short, they’re conservative evangelicals. At the risk of  oversimplification, the politicization of conservative evangelicals has long since become a politicization of evangelical theology. What’s more, this is all related to a broader willingness to accept existing social inequalities as divinely ordained.


god yes.  this.  any christian who pays passing attention to the bible should be horrified at the Salvation Army (trolololool) threatening to leave new york rather than be forced to help teh gheys.  The political representation of christianity is anti-people at best.

I don’t remember much, but I do remember this:
“I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”
Matthew 19:23-24

While I reject as true the “miraculous” parts of Jesus’ tale, I largely do find merit with his moral lessons. Particularly this:

'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' “They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ “He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
Matthew 25:31-46

sixbucks:

fleetfootedfox:

thetart:

Christianity and Capitalism

Overall more Americans believe that Christian values are at odds with capitalism and the free market than believe they are compatible. This pattern also holds among Christians. Among Christians in the U.S., only 38% believe capitalism and the free market are consistent with Christian values while 46% believe the two are at odds. There are significant differences by gender, party and income.

As it happens, they are absolutely correct; the Gospels are incredibly short on issues we associate with modern “values voting” — abortion and homosexuality, mostly — and incredibly long on reverence for the poor and disdain for the wealthy. Of course, that hasn’t made much of a difference to the United States, which through its history, has combined religious piety with stunning accumulations of wealth. That said, there is a good explanation for the particular willingness of Republicans/Tea Partiers to see congruence between Christianity and capitalism: in short, they’re conservative evangelicals. At the risk of oversimplification, the politicization of conservative evangelicals has long since become a politicization of evangelical theology. What’s more, this is all related to a broader willingness to accept existing social inequalities as divinely ordained.

god yes.  this.  any christian who pays passing attention to the bible should be horrified at the Salvation Army (trolololool) threatening to leave new york rather than be forced to help teh gheys.  The political representation of christianity is anti-people at best.

I don’t remember much, but I do remember this:

“I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

Matthew 19:23-24

While I reject as true the “miraculous” parts of Jesus’ tale, I largely do find merit with his moral lessons. Particularly this:

'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' “They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ “He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

Matthew 25:31-46

(via motherjones)