The War for the minds of Children, Intelligent Design in Polk, Florida

Our pastafarian friends over at the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster are reporting that another school board is in danger of tilting towards allowing creationism to be taught.

The Polk County School Board in Florida is composed of members, a majority of which would vote to include “intelligent design” in the curriculum.

“My tendency would be to have both sides shared with students since neither side can be proven,” [School Board Member] Tim Harris said.

“I don’t have a conflict with intelligent design versus evolution,” [School Board Member] Sellers said. “The two go together.”

“It crosses the line with people who are Christians,” [School Board Member] Lofton said. “Evolution is offensive to a lot of people.”

Don’t the two on the right look embarrassed to be up there?

While the Pastafarians have sent their theory in for consideration for addition to the curriculum, the real solution is to vote fundamentalists out of positions of influence.

I use the word fundamentalist because when talking about Islamists, I have distinguished between acceptable religious practice and unacceptable religious practice. The difference, endorsed by Salman Rushdie, is the nature of one’s religion. Is it private, personal and subtle? Or public, evangelical, and universal? Do you need, me to follow your rules too?

The School Board members in Polk would have to answer affirmatively to the two last questions. Their religious views, as supported by their own statements, are public. They believe non-believers need to be exposed and limited by their subjective, logically insufficient, scientifically inaccurate, unexamined beliefs. They are therefore in league with Islamists polluting the education of Muslim children in the name of political power.

Life in a Theocracy: Update, Government Goes ‘Soft’ on Teacher, Crowds Call for Death

Great Reuters video summary of the story

Remember Gillian Gibbons, The 54 year old British school teacher who allowed one of her students to name his teddy bear “Muhammad”? She was sentenced by Sudanese officials today. She’s been in jail for five days, since she was arrested shortly after the incident. Her punishment could have been a year in jail, 40 lashes or a fine. In the end, the government decided fifteen days in jail was appropriate. Excessive, but at least she’ll survive without being killed or something. Right? maybe…

Blasphemer and Heretic

When the news that the British school teacher “only” got fifteen days in prison was announced, up to a thousand marched in Sudan’s capital protesting for her death. The BBC reports:

According to some agencies, some of the protesters chanted: "Shame, shame on the UK", "No tolerance - execution" and "Kill her, kill her by firing squad".

This kindg of surprised me… The government takes a lenient (by regional standards) approach to the problem, she’s only serving 1/24 the maximum sentence. But the people get upset? On one hand this could be a small group of crazies, unrepresentative of the population. According to Wikipedia, there are 2.2 million people in the city, and another 6 million around the city. Some reports are emphatically claiming the number was in the “thousands”, but BBC claims it was about a thousand. In a city of that size, this protest seems relatively minor. Given the government’s lenient action, and the extraordinarily small scope of the protest, this could all go away once she’s released from prison and deported.

On the other hand, it only takes one person to kill her. Widespread outrage isn’t necessary for an assassination attempt. With the Sudanese Government’s theocratic tendencies and their absolute corruption, I’m sure she doesn’t feel safe in prison from those thousand, chanting for her death. Let’s hope she is able to get out of the country in one piece.

The Republican You Tube Debate: Abortion pt 2

The next question was:

If Roe v Wade was overturned, and Congress passed a bill banning abortion, would you sign it?

Giuliani to his credit, said he would not sign the bill, would leave it up to the states. The foundation of such an action, vetoing the bill, must be a belief in a woman’s right to have an abortion. Despite being at a Republican primary debate, where the political pressures favor the right-most candidate, he held firm to his belief.

Mitt Romney, on the other hand, would sign the bill, but he said that the country isn’t there yet. So where is the country Mitt? What is it that we want? According to him, “Where America is, is ready to overturn Roe v. Wade”. So let’s be clear about this, Mitt wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, and he believes the American public is ready for it. Aside from the fact that the current court has indicated is preference for precedent, Mitt Romney is flat wrong. The American public does not support overturning Roe v. Wade, as this study earlier this year indicates.

Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney both are making fire about overturning Roe, a long held goal for conservatives. Although this may work in the primary, once the general electi0n begins, things change. If either candidate's anti-abortion stance catapulted them into the nomination (as it could since the front runner is pro-choice), the issue that defines either candidate's success will become abortion, and their stance against it will be clear and undeniable. But as the chart indicates, the public is not ready to overturn Roe v. Wade. Convincing fellow republicans is difference than convincing the sea of moderates, who favor the courts ruling. This opinion would undoubtedly affect their choice for president, the Republican nominees ignore this fact at their own peril.

The Republican You Tube Debate: Abortion pt. 1

These YouTube debates have been good. The questions are much more interesting than the one’s journalists generally ask and since the YouTubers themselves ask the question, each new round brings a new questioner. Some have an edge of resentment for politicians. Most offer an authentic perspective. Still Others were plants from Hilary Clinton’s campaign. These factors created a tension for the candidates that occasionally yielded more honest glimpses of their true personalities. Crucial since the stakes are raising because America is beginning to tune in.

The first religious question asked, “if abortion were illegal and a women got one anyway what should the punishment be?”

Ron Paul was up first and he began by claiming that the federal government shouldn’t dictate the punishment for abortion. Under his administration, it would be left to the states to decide, in part because it is such a controversial issue, he doesn’t think it should be “all fifty states the same way”.

He then said that the “abortionist” (an Orwellian term for a highly educated Professional Doctor who performs abortions, and therefore endorses it ethically) should be punished not the woman. Ron Paul is utterly opposed to abortion, probably stemming from his deep religious faith, after all he was nearly a Lutheran minister. If he believed in a more forceful Presidency, this could be a killer for his campaign, but since he would leave regulation to that states, its seen as consistent with his views.

Fred Thompson said same thing as Paul except he sounded more nervous, spoke less intelligently, and induced me to suicidal boredom. Grampa Fred puts the room to sleep again.

Tompson and Paul have the sense to know a modern political truth. Something we'll talk about more in the next segment; that it is politically deadly to be anti-abortion in a national campaign.

The Republican YouTube Debate: Jesus and the Death Penalty

watch him squirm

The question was simply, 'Regarding the Death Penalty, what would Jesus do?'

Huckabee answered the question by arguing his position on the death penalty in general. He dragged out the old dead dog of deterrence, long refuted. To cover his pro-death bases, he also made the age old claim that some problems are “beyond any other capacity for us fix”. His claim is that since we cannot “fix” the problem we should kill the person.

Aside from his vague notion of “fixing” people, and our current prison system’s incapacity and unwillingness to do so, Mike Huckabee is making a classic logical error called, false dilemma. This happens when, during an argument, one explains that a circumstance must resolve in one of only two ways. A fallacy exists if there are other, unmentioned, ways the circumstance could resolve. With the debate, Huckabee set up the false dilemma that we have to “fix” terrible criminals or kill them. If there are any other possibilities his argument falls apart. So why not lock up terrible criminals we can't reform forever? Whether or not you agree that it’s a good option, at least grant that it’s an option. Huckabee’s fallacious point undermines the logic of his argument. Which, if we remember, was designed to dodge the question about what Jesus thinks about capital punishment.

When Anderson Cooper pressed him, Huckabee used his keen sense of humor to deflect the question, “Jesus was too smart to ever run for public office”.

Tom Tancredo was next up, his dodge was much less graceful and genuine. He just said that he’d pray to god when he had to kill someone, and that he supported the death penalty. No talk of what Jesus would do, or any justification of his beliefs.

The Republican YouTube Debate: Literal Interpretation of the Bible Pt. 3, Mike Huckabee

Mike Huckabee can't make up his mind about his weight. I wonder if he would be able to decide whether or not to kill Osama Bin Laden? America can't afford a flip-flopper, not now.

Huckabee, a Baptist minister, spit out a canned answer. It echoed Rudy’s claim that the Bible was allegorical, while explaining that the parts that didn’t make sense to him despite years of theological study, weren’t supposed to.

Do we want a president an intellectually vacant as that? I suppose since most Americans believe the bible is literal, they would agree with Huckabee, but I argue that it is obvious to see that The Bible is the work of men. I’ve known that my entire life. I have never believed God wrote the bible. How could he? As a kid I thought how is it possible that infallible God wrote a book I couldn’t understand. My parents explained it was because it was written so long ago in strange hard to read language, and right then I realized it was manmade. If god made it, he would have written it to have universal meaning, not one limited to a time frame. The older I grew, even if I believed in a Christian god, I still believed it was the work of men. Think about it, if God wrote The Bible wouldn’t it at least be interesting?

Regardless, Huckabee’s answer, easy, without controversy and soaked in religious code-language, was a result of his comfortable relationship with religion. His ministerial status gives him unparalleled religious legitimacy.

The Republican YouTube Debate: Literal Interpretation of the Bible Pt. 2, Mitt Romney

After Rudy answered,

Mitt totally blew this question. He started strong, earning slight applause by claiming that the Bible is the word of god, a claim he would make once every nine seconds until he finished talking. But as soon as he was pinned down and asked if he believed every word, he lost what little momentum he had.

Ol’ Mitt Looking the Part

He came off as defensive and unsure, while appearing to be religiously equivocating. It will be interesting to see if this hurts his poll numbers with the most religious voters. I imagine it could if they were paying attention.

He didn’t mention the Book of Mormon, or his personal religious differences from Christians, other than saying that he might interpret the Bible a different way than “you” do.

By highlighting his acceptance of the Bible as “the word of god” Romney was seeking to draw parallels with his faith and Christianity. He avoided saying the “M” word or mentioning any Mormon differences. Not surprising, Mitt is trying to become president in a country that is deeply mistrustful of his religion.

The Republican YouTube Debate: Literal Interpretation of the Bible Pt. 1 Rudy

This question splits the religious and political community apart. The questioner asked, do you agree with every word in the Bible? Essentially this question is asking if candidates believe the things that have been shown to be scientifically untrue. For example, The Bible’s account of the age of the Earth, and the creation of animals and man are all completely out of line with scientific reality. When we find a 3.2 million year old skeleton of a species that was below our current evolutionary state, but walked upright, it’s impossible to believe that god simply created man out of dust 5,000 years ago. These kinds of contradictions were at the heart of the question. He was asking, “Do you accord every word of the bible with literal meaning, thereby believing things that are absolutely false, or do you admit some things are not literal?” This question may seem silly, but in a country where the majority believes that the Bible is literal truth, it may hold electoral importance.

Rudy Tootie Fresh and Fruity

Rudy Giuliani answered the question first, he said that he believed the whole thing, but that parts were allegorical, and parts were meant to be interpretive. He stressed that it was important to him and even went so far as to say it is the “greatest book ever written”.

Some other Atheists might object to his general belief in supernatural beings, his professed religiosity. But I am more interested in his religion in practice, than in performance. Rudy says that he interprets the Bible and that parts are literal, but others aren’t. The practical reality is that Rudy has been married and divorced multiple times disrespecting fidelity throughout. Obviously, his belief is that the Bible does not extend over his sexual life, maybe that’s something he thinks shouldn’t be interpreted in a literal context.

Politically he’s pro-choice, to his credit I might add, but that doesn’t jive with the Bible’s implication; that every baby has a soul from conception, which is robbed of life by abortion. Certainly that isn’t up for interpretation.

Rudy’s uses of religion the way most politicians do, to get votes. I have no problem with that, religion is a tool to control people en mass, always has been, always will be. Rudy is a cagey political veteran going back to the bread and butter of superstitious politics.

Because of Rudy’s perceived problem with religious voters, he tried to establish his religiosity. At the same time he seemed cautious, stopping short of professing literal belief. It was a calculated and political performance, but one that no one should interpret as religiously genuine.

Life in a Theocracy: Teddy Bear Subversive pt. 1

The BBC reports, A British Teacher in Sudan allowed one of her students to name a teddy bear “Muhammad” in a class activity. Authorities, enforcing an Islamic command against representing Muhammad, arrested and charged her with Insulting Religion, Inciting Hate, and Showing Contempt for religious beliefs. If convicted, she could face 6 months in jail, 40 lashes, or a fine.

This nice lady?

Why does the state have a role to play here? It’s insulting on multiple levels. First and foremost, I am offended by the states authoritarian endorsement of one specific religion, which would not surprise anyone familiar with Sudan. Another facet of insult lies in the states regulation of religious rules. It is one thing to endorse one religion over all others; it’s another thing to become the punisher of religious violations. And it is an unbearable thing

I am insulted because when a government promotes one religion above all others squelches the debate. No longer is there a marketplace of ideas where bad ideas collide with better ideas, not in Sudan. In Muslim Theocracies, Islam is the only game in town. When a government doesn’t allow ideas to compete, traditions go unexamined, centuries old religious regulation created in a specific set of historical circumstances (complete female subjection, scientific ignorance, etc) continue to hold sway over modern times that are devoid of the context the rules were written in. The result is that the religion does not match the time and many of these Muslim Theocracies are the worse off for it. They govern poorly, authoritatively punishing their populations, and they eschew contact and trade with the west, that could help their economy.

More next post!

Life in a Theocracy: Teddy Bear Subversive pt. 2

(This is a continuation of the Previous Article)

Don't call him "Mo"

This event reminds me of Salman Rushdie’s article, “Yes, This Is About Islam". In it, he makes the point that in the west, religion has faded into our private lives, we have individualized it. While in Islamic countries, religion is not private, it is public, it’s not only important what you do, and it is important what your neighbor does. He claims, and I agree, that this is the fundamental flaw with Islam that must be reformed if they are to enter the modern world.

These “Islamists” are using this event to whip up anti-west sentiment

"What has happened was not haphazard or carried out of ignorance, but rather a calculated action and another ring in the circles of plotting against Islam," the Sudanese Assembly of the Ulemas said in a statement.

We’ll see how it turns out. Given their countries history with dealing with large problems, my faith in their capacity to deal with this small problem is shaken to say the least. This is Religious Politics in Sudan, and at any given time we are one election away from this.

Update: Saudi Foreign Minister: It’s ok that we punished that gang rape victim, she’s a whore!

When defending rape, imputing that the victim was promiscuous is a frequently used tactic. Today, the Saudi Arabian government issued a statement claiming that the woman who was gang raped 14 times earlier this month, was having an affair when she was raped. This was meant to mitigate the international outrage that occurred after news broke of the girl's story.

The minister claims that the woman has admitted to being in the act of intercourse with a man other than her husband, when she and her lover were gang raped at knife point. By releasing this information, the foreign minister believes it is somehow helping its case.

What is the Saudi government saying, “She was having an affair so she deserved it”? First of all, I don’t trust the Saudi government to fully report the truth when it is under international scrutiny. There is a good chance, this new fact is untrue. But even if it is true, it doesn’t matter. Her gang rape was still a terrible crime, and her punishment should still be nothing. If she was having an affair, than the state should leave it to them to sort it out, its simply not the governments job. The Saudi’s show how they completely miss the point by defending themselves like this.

Palestinian Aid Worker Seeks End to Sanctions on Gaza

The UN has pressed British parliament to influence Israel to lift sanctions on Gaza. Israel applied the sanctions when Hamas seized control of Gaza and split with the Fatah party that still controls the West Bank.

John Ging, Gaza's director of operations for the refugee agency UNRWA, said that "crushing sanctions" imposed since the Israeli cabinet declared the Strip a "hostile entity" in September had contributed to "truly appalling living conditions."

The article goes on to indicate that the Palestinians who are suffering under the sanctions are incapable of stopping the rocket fire and attacks Israel seeks to stop. But I can imagine Israel’s response.

An Israeli might argue that since that Palestinian people in Gaza voted for Hamas, they decided to split with Israel and pursue a course of conflict. The ramifications of voting for an organization that does not believe in Israel’s right to exist, is, at least, to stop trading with them.

Once again the argument for peace in the Mideast breaks down to two competing claims. Israel shouldn't trade with people who elect Terrorist governments, or Israel should life sanctions on its neighbors in Gaza because they are causing terrible living conditions. Take your choice, they're both right and they're both wrong.

breaking news report of fall of Gaza

New Book Claims Israeli Aid Comes at High Cost

Israel’s Army and Air Force

This BBC article discusses a new book which claims that the pro-Israel lobby has caused America’s uneven financial support of Israel and that those policies are damaging our overseas interests.

According to the article, the United States spend an enormous percentage (17%) of our direct aid budget on military assistance for Israel. This would be money well spent if Israel was beneficial to our anti-terrorism goals.

[But the Authors] reject the argument that Israel is a key ally in America's "war on terror".

Some might argue that Israel is an island of Democracy that is aiding our pro-democracy interests in the region. The Authors of the new book disagree.

On the contrary, they contend, US patronage of Israel fuels militant anger - as well as fostering resentment in Arab countries that control vital oil supplies.

They added,

He and Mr Mearsheimer deny recycling old fantasies of Jewish conspiracies. Their book repeatedly states that pro-Israeli lobbying is not secretive, but conforms to the open rules of America's democratic system.

I would tend to agree with the Authors of the new book because our aid to Israel is frequently cited as motivation for terrorism. It is part of the fundamental schism between western and Islamic civilizations. Successful mediation of this dispute, is required in order to begin the process of reconciliation that would see Israeli and Palestinian states cooperating side by side, and Islamic Terrorism a thing of the past.

Iranian Women Growing in Influence

I stumbled upon this article the other day. It claims that demographic trends in Iran have been influencing the politics of the country since the 70’s and continue to do so now.

When hordes of young students participated in protests that brought down the Shah in the late 70’s, the birth rate was 6.5 children per woman. That’s plummeted, to 1.7 today according to the CIA’s World Fact Book.

This article claims it could be even lower than that,

Philip Jenkins, professor of history and religious studies at Pennsylvania State University, claims from the latest U.N. data that the real fertility rate may already be the lowest in the world at 0.66 children per woman.

The high birthrate in the 70’s lead to a large number of youth in the 80’s, giving Iran the soldiers needed to fend off Saddam’s army, and the activists to overthrow the Shah. This latest demographic shift might has similarly revolutionary results, and if so, could be influencing current Iranian nuclear policy.

The low fertility rates are probably related to the role of women in Iranian society. After the Iran-Iraq war, the state created sexual education and contraception, as the article points out “Iran remains the only country in the world in which a young couple before marriage must both undergo courses in contraception and family planning.”

In addition, the governments educational expansion has benefited women more than men with up to 70% of college graduates being female. The result is a more educated Iranian woman, sexually, occupationally, and politically. It seems clear to me that this would threaten the patriarchal power structure in Iran, and create a pressure for practical change.

The article is more concerned with the currently large supply of young men,

There is a controversy about this. Jenkins thinks that the demographic shifts mean that Iran is likely to become a stable, placid and peaceful country. Others fear that today's plentiful availability of cannon-fodder means Iran could be highly aggressive over the coming decade.

But there are also domestic implications to bear in mind. Large numbers of unemployed young men tend to be a potentially destabilizing force in society and to be associated with increased levels of crime and violence, at least until they are socialized by marriage and the responsibilities of parenthood. But with marriage in decline and fewer children being born, the fewer men are likely to be tamed by the responsibilities of family life.

Life in a Theocracy: Woman Punished After Being Gang Raped

In an attempt to explain the importance of politics, and the remind cynics what is still good about our country, this blog will examine life in theocratic states.

By learning about the backwards and illiberal actions of tyrannical governments that blend religion and politics, we can remind ourselves of what’s at stake if we lose our democratic values.

Today, we examine the story of a 19 year old Saudi girl who was gang raped last week. As it turns out not only is she being punished for being in the car with men alone, but the sentence is being increased since she tried to use international media to help her situation.

She was gang-raped 14 times in the attack, and her punishment was 200 lashes, and a six-month prison sentence.

I don’t know what to feel worse about; her brutal gang-rape, the lack of balanced justice, her punishment… This is what happens with the thumbs of religious dogma are placed on the scales of justice.

Life in a Theocracy: Iran cracks down on “vices”.

In today’s installment of Life in a Theocracy, we travel to Persia where the Islamic government enforces Sharia law.

Maybe you’ve had to dress up for church, didn’t that suck? That’s the way it is in Iran, 24/7 now. Although there has been periods of liberal enforcement, the Iranian Police has announced renewed efforts to crack down on “vices”.

The police are warning they will deal seriously with any women who dare to wear short trousers, skimpy overcoats or skirts that are revealingly transparent or have slits in them.

Can you imagine being an Iranian Police officer, having to spend your timing judging the transparency of skirts and the skimpiness of overcoats? Do you think any of them signed up for that? The regulations continue…

Wearing boots instead of full length trousers will not be tolerated, nor will hats instead of headscarves. Indeed, the police stipulate that small headscarves are out - the scarf must cover a woman's head and neck completely.

The article doesn’t mention this but this crackdown occurred for two purposes. One establishes the dominance of Iranian patriarchal religious culture over women and their habits. When the Imams control women’s fashion, and sexual behavior, they control the society. Another purpose is to push back against the slow intrusion of western culture. Since western culture allows human nature its most free expression, western dress and trends constantly seep into Iranian society. This is repudiated by the government, sometimes in formal enforcement actions like this one. Both the power of women and western culture in Iran are threats to the ruling class, and as a result they were cracked down on. Increased repression shows that there is instability. We might be seeing the beginning of another revolutionary period in Iran.

Arafat's Tomb Reminds of Disquiet

President of Palestine Mahmoud Abbas completed a tomb for former leader Yasser Arafat in the city of Ramallah in the West Bank.

Palestinians claim Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine, as a result, leader like Arafat want to be buried in Jerusalem but can't under current political conditions. The tomb built by Abbas is temporary until Yassar Araft can be buried in Jerusalem.

Once again the unfortunate dual importance of Jerusalem rears its ugly head. It is one place on Earth where people who do not agree must get along. They must get along because complete separation is impossible. Both claim the land as their own, both claim holy sites in Jerusalem and want political authority over it. Jerusalem is at the center of the problem.

One possible solution is to make it a commonly governed, international city. UN peacekeeping forces from Muslim nations would be deployed on the Palestinian side and peace keepers from western countries could patrol the Israeli side. This would improve the security condition dramatically and make political reconciliation possible. I liken it to a genuine and full-blooded "surge". Having the seat of both their governments in the secure city will allow the two countries to more fully embrace each other diplomatically in an effort aimed at full reconciliation. Al-Aqsa Mosque would be fully granted to Muslim authority, neither country would have sovereignty, but each would have authority over their section, along the 1967 borders. Their security concerns would be common, their territory would be common, and their trade policy could be easily coordinated.

I read this story to my Jewish (heritage only) girlfriend, she thought the following passage:

“The tomb also includes a minaret which shines a laser beam towards Jerusalem”

referred to an attack laser, pointed at Israel, in the theme of a super villain like Dr. Evil. She’s just worried about her family that lives there, but when I explained it was just a light show, she quickly grew disinterested. Perhaps creating the political pressure domestically to implement that kind of solution would be impossible.

Sunni Militia Attacks Al-Qaeda

This article reports that a Sunni militant group attacked an Al-Qaeda compound near Samara in Iraq. This same Sunni group, used to fight against US forces as insurgents. The Sunni Islamic Army of Iraq, killed 18 fighters and captured 16. Sunni Ex-insurgents attacked and killed Sunni terrorists.

Of course there is the reciprocal tragedy of is, the article mentions an anti-Al-Qaeda sheik and his family being killed in a suicide blast, but this may represent a real turning point. Sunni against Sunni violence goes against the typical sectarian lines were used to hearing about in Iraq. The issue between them, transcends religion, it may be about tactics, or about peace and order, or governing styles, but whatever it is, Militant groups are pushing out terrorists.

Is this a good thing? Of course! Is this surprising? ‘Fraid not. Iraq was a relatively secular country before we invaded, at least their government was. Saddam didn’t like the rival influence of fundamentalists and kept them out of his country with force.

Ron Paul’s Problem with the Jews

I ran across this article while stumbling. It talks about the increasing success of Texas congressman Ron Paul. His libertarian message and non-imperial foreign policy is earning him quite a bit of attention in a ruckus race.

Government Shrinker - Ron Paul

While his fortunes are growing, the article claims that one potential threat to his continued success, is the kinds of supporters that are joining up.

Indeed, Ron Paul has become the most popular candidate among right-wing extremists, including white separatists, neo-Nazis, and conspiracy theorists who believe that “the Zionists” were behind 9/11. This group includes Frank Weltner, creator of the antisemitic website JewWatch.com, who in a YouTube video, accuses the “Zionist-controlled media” of attacking Paul’s candidacy. Paul has also received favorable coverage from the Vanguard News Network, a White Nationalist news organ, members of Stormfront, an online neo-Nazi community, as well as the National Alliance, the “mainstream” White Nationalist group featured prominently in Marc Levin’s 2005 film Protocols of Zion.

The article claims that this will cause a problem in the long run, since Jewish voters will be less likely to join up and support the candidate along side neo-Nazis.

Mashugana!

Ron Paul has a “Jewish Problem” like Dennis Kucinich has a problem slam-dunking a basketball, or I have a problem spending a million dollars. In other words, Ron Paul's, isn't a problem at all. In order to have a problem with your election, your election has to be possible. That’s Ron Paul’s real problem, he doesn’t have any votes. Not nationally. Not in any of the important primaries. It is interesting how much fuss has been made over Ron Paul, without any ability to increase his poll numbers at all. Without a surprise showing in Iowa, New Hampshire, or South Carolina his candidacy will be over before spring.

Robertson endorses Giuliani

Chris Britt, Springfield, IL -- The State Journal-Register

“The Lord had some very encouraging news for George Bush. What I heard [from God] was that Bush is now positioned to have victory after victory and that his second term is going to be one of triumph, which is pretty strong stuff.”

That wonderfully incorrect prediction is from Pat Robertson. You might remember him as the guy who called for the assassination of democratically elected president of Venezuela Hugo Chavez, an action that, as the cartoon points out, puts him in league with terrorists. He is a, televangelist, ex-presidential candidate, and perhaps the worst prophet in the history of man, and today he endorsed Rudy Giuliani.

“Why do I care?” you ask. Allow me to explain…

This move could throw the evangelical movement into uncharacteristic disunity, and could even mark the beginning of the end of the Christian Right. You see, the Christian right has built its political power on the backs of its believers. They have been able to have a significant effect on politics because evangelical leaders have been able to mobilize their parish.

This mobilization is often accomplished by tapping into the parishioner’s common religious beliefs. Pastors and Priests link religious dogma, such as “Thou shall not kill” to selected political issues, like the national debate on abortion.

Pat Robertson’s endorsement of Rudy Giuliani, who is pro-abortion, quad-divorced, and pro-gay rights, ensures that voters will not be able to link their presidential vote to religious belief. This raises two interesting questions: If Pat Robertson didn’t choose Rudy based on theological grounds on what grounds did he choose him? And, Will religious voters be motivated to vote when doing so would require them voting against their religious values?

The answer to the first question is obvious. The religious right wants power and their leaders are going to line up being the candidate they think will win. Giving the winning candidate votes now, buys them influence later.

The second question is a little more tough. In the past, republican strategists haven’t been completely confident when voters didn’t have a direct religious reason to vote for a candidate, in 2004 despite George W. Bush’s perceived religiosity, the GOP put 11 same-sex marriage bans on state ballots to bring out the religious voters. Will they be able to do the same thing in 2008? We’ll have to wait and see.