Onward, Christian Soldiers, Marching As To War.

This morning I decided not to write about what I was going to write because it sort of seems like I’m a conspiracy nut.  But, then, voila, this on Huffington Post.

NEWPORT, R.I. (AP) — President Barack Obama on Friday blamed dysfunction in Congress on a Republican Party he said is captive to an ideologically rigid, unproductive and cynical faction, urging like-minded Democrats to show up for November's midterm elections. Darlene Superville, Huffington Post, 8/30/14, GOP hostage to ideologically rigid group

This is my opinion on just who and what this “ideologically rigid, unproductive and cynical faction” is.  This opinion has been formed by both personal experience, natural curiosity, and some research. 

As I was growing up, my parents were what now would be designated as very conservative, although at the time they were pretty mainstream, at least among our contemporaries.  Fortunately they were so prejudiced they assumed it came with the genes, so never really mentioned their absolute dislike of other races, nationalities or religions other than Protestantism.  Consequently, I was not “carefully taught to hate by the time I was six or seven or eight.”  (From the lyrics of a song from South Pacific).  My mother, on the other hand, was pretty general about not becoming friends with anyone who was not like us.  All of their prejudice surfaced, however, when I married a, gasp, Swiss even though his mother was a Scot, and in the Catholic Church besides. They refused to come to our wedding.  Of course, when our eldest daughter was born, their opinion of us certainly did mellow, fortunately.  When our girls were in their early teens my mother asked me if it was all right with me if she explained to our girls that they must marry someone with pure blood, just as if you had a herd of pure bred cows, you wouldn’t want to bring in a bull with bad blood lines.  She evidently had decided Bill was OK.  I told her I didn’t mind at all if she would tell them exactly what she had just told me.  They told me later she never had mentioned it. 

The absolute right of religious liberty is so strong in our country, both by law and by desire, as well as the First Amendment to The Bill of Rights:  “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof:” This concept used to be so ingrained in us that when the radical religious right began to surface publically most of us stood back and respected their right to believe as they wished.  I recognized a great deal of what they were saying, since I had been exposed to it from childhood, and for the most part from my perspective it was pretty innocuous. 

Several years ago, though, Rachel Maddow interviewed Jeff Sharlet, author of The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power, 2008.  One of the chapters in this book, Jesus Plus Nothing, was really disturbing to me.  I have long loved reading about Catholic Christian theology because the different views by the various theologians, men and women, opened up new and exciting vistas regarding Christian traditions and teachings.  So to read about a system that taught that all one needed was faith in Jesus seemed a tad simplistic, to say the least.  According to The Family, all one needed to resolve a problem, say, was to pray to Jesus and He would tell you what to do.  Although, as Sharlet commented, and I paraphrase, it was amazing how often Jesus agreed with what the person praying wanted to do anyway.  This above point about Jesus Plus Nothing is really important, however, when one considers what to many appears to be just loony-tunes jabbering by some of the groups that have arisen and become more and more prominent in the last few years. 

In a blog of this length it is difficult to sort out the documentation that will explain my point.  So, I will stick to just four.  The first is from: The Public Eye, Summer, 2014, Rumblings of Theocratic Violence, Frederick Clarkson.  In the Public Eye article, Clarkson quotes several prominent among far right circles, individuals who maintain basically that America is no longer a valid government because it has rejected Christianity and supports same-sex marriage, abortion, and obedience to God’s law.  As the heading to the article states:  “Some Christian Right activists, including a high-level GOP operative, have lost hope that a Christian nation can be achieved in the United States, through the formal political process.  They are calling for martyrs and thinking about religious war.”

In his blog, talk2action.org, on 7/25/14, “GOP Leader Questions Candidate About Hate Group That Advocates Death Squads – Updated” This was cross-posted from The Huffington Post.

“The head of Maryland’s Republican Party, Joe Cluster, has called local candidate Michael Peroutka to the woodshed for a “clarification” about his involvement with a high-profile, white nationalist hate group.  At least that’s what Cluster thinks the subject of their 7/25 meeting will be.

But wait until he reads this.

On July 8, as I reported, Peroutka wrote a letter to Michael Hill, president of the League of the South, asking the neo-Confederate hate group to help his campaign.  Peroutka wanted to thank the League, which advocates for secession and theocratic government by and for white people, for its friendship, work, and hospitality.  Peroutka had just won the GOP’s nomination for Anne Arundel County Council, as well as a seat on the Republican Central Committee there, and it made perfect sense that he would reach out to the no doubt many members of the organization on which he once served on the Board of Directors for their support.”

“Perhaps Peroutka was surprised the following week, when on July 15, Hill wrote an essay for the League’s website titled “A Bazooka in Every Pot,” in which he outlines a program for “guerrilla war,” marked by “three-to-five-man” death squads which would target government leaders, journalists, and other public figures for assassination, in order to advance the League’s goals.

“To oversimplify,” writes Hill, “the primary targets will not be enemy soldiers; instead, they will be political leaders, members of the hostile media, cultural icons, bureaucrats, and other of the managerial elite without whom the engines of tyranny don’t run”

Now I realize that this is certainly NOT the views of the majority of Republicans.  And it is NOT the views of the vast majority of Christians, Protestant or Catholic, in this country.  But at the same time, relate to what is being said above to what happened in Arizona at the Clive Bundy ranch.  We had Christians there who thought nothing of aiming a rifle at Bureau of Land Management personnel because in the minds of these demented individuals, the BLM people represented this tyrannical government.  They were and are adherents of the splinter group of Christians who believe it is God’s plan that they control the government of the United States.  They are formally called Christian Dominionists. 

Then think about what happened in Ferguson, MO, and what at least two of the officers there did, and what the rest were ordered to do.  Remember the military vehicles that were on the street, aiming rifles at American citizens who were doing, and as I have done, peacefully protesting what they perceived to be an injustice.  For me, it was protesting the invasion of Iraq, Mitchell Park, SLO.  The SLO PD did not bring out armored vehicles, nor aimed rifles at us.  They were there, and I was glad to see them, standing off to one side, quietly.  They were a comforting presence.  But then we were all of us white.  In Ferguson, two officers behaved in a truly reprehensible manner.  Ray Albers, caught on tape pointing his gun at American citizens and threatening to shoot them, has resigned. 

But Dan Page, the St. Louis County police officer, who was caught ranting during a chapter meeting of the League of the South in St. Louis, and I paraphrase, “I believe that Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior, and I am a killer, and I will kill again if you get in front of my gun.”  Now Page has a right to say that even if I think it is reprehensible, shameful, inexcusable, and disgusting.  My point here is that he is saying much the same as many others who espouse this Jesus Plus Nothing, anti-civil government, pro-theocratic government philosophy. 

My problem is at what point does a demand for freedom of religion, and the right to the free exercise thereof, slide over into an invasion of my civil rights and an invasion of my right to a free exercise of my Christian faith?  Our country is walking a really troubled path here, and we need to do the nearly impossible – that is, keep looking at our feet so we don’t stumble while at the same time looking down that troubled path to see where the direction we are pointing our feet will eventually lead us. 

 

What Does That Have To Do With Anything?

So, I’m a little late writing my blog this week, but there is so much to write about I simply couldn’t choose among them all, but I think I have finally settled on one.  This is something that so many people in both, or all, political parties do.

We all are acquainted with the old statements relative to women being assaulted.  “Oh, well, she had a couple of drinks, her skirt was short, and her blouse too tight.  She was just asking for it.”  No – all that had nothing to do with what happened to her, but it did make a great excuse for the assaulter to exonerate himself and to blame her for what he did.  Blame the victim.

This morning on several sites was the fact that a St. Louis officer had been caught on tape making really offensive remarks about almost everybody.  He was removed from duty, as he should have been, but this had nothing to do with what happened in Ferguson, MO, since this officer was from St. Louis.  His actions are reprehensible, but they should not be taken as an indication that every officer in the St. Louis/Ferguson area is a total bigot.  We may assume that some are, since bigots are not limited to that area of the country, but it is no more correct to blame all officers for the actions of one than to blame all the peaceful protesters in Ferguson for the actions of a few looters/rioters. 

The minute the Ferguson police began releasing negative information about Michael Brown, such as the video showing probably Brown snitching cigars from a convenience store, and then the police commenting from the autopsy that he had marijuana in his blood, made me wonder what they were trying to divert attention from.  That action by the department probably has done more to negatively impact that department than any other action they could have taken.  Fox News, although it isn’t, came up with a really great one, and that is the officer had to shoot Brown because Brown was so big and the officer, Wilson, was so much smaller!!  So all tall men need to shrink?

It is really difficult when diversionary tactics like this are put up by individuals, companies, government agencies or who or whatever, to keep focused on what has actually happened because these diversionary tactics are often quite subtle, and not quite so blatant as in the case of Michael Brown.  This happens at the national level as well.  A good example was the invasion of both Afghanistan and Iraq.  These countries had to be destroyed because they were harboring Al Qaeda.  It was their fault we had to attack and destroy them.  Little or nothing was said about the fact that the terrorists were actually from Saudi Arabia.  I certainly am not advocating that we should have invaded Saudi Arabia, only that we should not have invaded Afghanistan and Iraq over something they did not do. 

Not only is the use of diversionary tactics basically the result of immaturity, but when used by adults in dangerous situations can lead to some really unpleasant, unhealthy and downright scary results.  In Ferguson it led to nights of protests.  In Iraq, it led to the rise of ISIS.  What we all need is a good dose of taking responsibility for our own actions – good or bad.

 

Dot to Dot Books

When I was a child and when my own kids were small, we all liked those dot to dot books where one connects the dots in order of the numbers and a picture emerged, and then we would color the pictures.  This, of course, was before television, iPads or smartphones!  Some events have been happening in our nation in the past few years that have reminded me of those “dot to dot” books.

First off, after Barack Obama was elected President there was a lot of talk about how America had emerged from our terrible racial history, racial prejudice was a thing of the past, and we could all move on beyond that.  What a wonderful, naïve, and very short time that was!

The first dot didn’t tell us much.  Just some crazy Republican states back East that wanted to place restrictions on voting, but local talking heads seemed to think that those restrictions could be worked around.  Then some knuckle-head from Philadelphia, I think, got caught on camera talking about how they had gotten the restrictions through, and those restrictions would guarantee that Mitt Romney would win the election.  I can still close my eyes and see that doofus with his infamous, “Done”.  That was the second dot.

About this time it was made public that the very night Barack Obama was inaugurated as President of the United States, the Republicans in Congress got together and determined they would undermine anything and everything Barack Obama wanted to do.  The third dot.

More and more states began efforts to restrict voting.  Then Congress began dodging the immigration ball.  Although the Senate passed a bill, Congress refused to take it up.  First because it didn’t secure the border; then there were not enough funds for border patrol officers; then they didn’t want to pass the entire bill at once, but wanted to “piece-meal” it.  Then, and then, and then until nothing has been done.  The fourth dot.

Children from Central America began to trickle across the border into the United States.  The trickle became a stream, and then a river.  Nothing was done to fund assistance for these refugees from countries devastated by the violence from the drug trade that supplies users here in this country.  When Congress did act, it was to essentially throw these refugee children back into the cauldron of violence they had attempted to escape from.  No sense of compassion for them at all.  The fifth dot.

Mostly these same states were also refusing to expand Medicaid services for poorer people under the Affordable Care Act.  That these poorer people were mainly African and Hispanic Americans was never mentioned overtly, but it certainly became pretty obvious that was the intent.  Somehow it never occurred to those making the decision not to expand Medicaid which would make people sicker, would then make them go out and look for a part-time or minimum wage job that provided health insurance benefits!  Another dot.

This past week in Ferguson, MO, was a real horror.  To shoot an unarmed teen-ager, still a boy, because he was walking down the street with a friend was disturbing.  And when his community members came out onto the streets to protest that killing to have to face even more violence was nearly intolerable.  To watch citizens of the United States denied the right guaranteed to them under the First Amendment, “…the right of the people to peaceably assemble…” made me shiver.  Virtual tanks on the streets with a sniper riding on top in a small town in Missouri!!  Another dot.

Now, once again, the police are trying to infer that the boy that was killed had been involved in the theft of a box of cigars at a local store.  So what if he had?  Is a box of cigars worth shooting an unarmed boy over?  I think not when one considers the Wall Street tycoons who stole billions of dollars and walked away without even so much as a slap on the wrist.  Another dot, however.

At the same time as all of this is going on, in another corner are the people who keep saying that, “We have to take our country back”.  At first there was just the question, sort of asked generally, “Back from who, or what”?   After the census numbers were released from the 2010 census that indicated there was a significant demographic shift taking place in the United States, and that the traditional white majority would, by the year, 2020, not be the majority anymore, it became really obvious what has been going on.  Another dot.

After all of these dots are connected, the picture that has emerged is really pretty sick.  Now we know who the “who or what” is.  There are enough white people in power who believe that it is possible to knock women, and black, brown or Asian’s back into their proper place.  Which is to be second class citizens in a country ruled by a white male power elite. 

The only advantage of the picture we have drawn by connecting these dots is that those within the dots are already colored, so we won’t have to do that coloring.

 

Yazidi and Children

Probably everyone has read, heard or watched what has been going on in Iraq.  And I doubt that anyone, including even the right-wing radicals is objecting to the humanitarian missions to air-lift food, water, medical supplies, tents, etc., to the mixture of religious minorities taking refuge in the Sinjar mountains.  People, who before the air-lifts, were dying of hunger and thirst.  It is estimated that approximately 40,000 people took refuge there, among them a religious group, the Yazidis whose religion traces back to before Christ, and contains elements of ancient beliefs, Christianity and Islam.  I came across a slight description of one of their beliefs on Ezra Klein’s blog, vox.com, which I found sort of interesting.  And that is that God exists, but the world is run by seven angels.  In the beginning, or sometime thereafter, one of the angels rebelled against God, but God not only forgave the angel, but made that particular angel the leader over the other angels.  However, the Muslims who make up ISIS keep forgetting if they ever knew, that God forgave that angel, so ISIS believes that the Yazidis worship Satan.  This last is in here only because I find it interesting.

Needless to say, these humanitarian air-lifts to the Yazidis, and others, on that mountain are absolutely, in my opinion, the very best action our government could have taken.  This humanitarianism is what we used to be known for.  As for the bombing of the ISIS artillery locations outside of the city of Erbil so long as they are to protect our own American personnel in the consulate, and the several hundred military who are also there, I don’t have a problem with that.  If it expands to protect Iraqi oil fields for our benefit and use, I have a great problem with that!  Not that anyone in the White House or Pentagon cares what I like and don’t like, but then, similar to many people, I do need to express my opinion.

With that said, I am a tad confused about something relative to our federal policies and the radical right.  So far, I have not heard any of them complaining about the air-lifts of aid to the Yazidis, even though these flights will undoubtedly cost somewhere in the millions of dollars, but the radical right is having a screaming fit over the refugee children streaming across our borders to escape abuse and/or death in their countries.  In both cases, these refugees are in the condition they are in from some really bad policy decisions made, primarily by our more conservative politicians.  Policies that have generated the violence that both the Yazidis and the children are fleeing from on opposites sides of the globe.  Why is it all right to spend millions of dollars to air-lift supplies elsewhere, but not spend millions of dollars closer to home to help refugee children, and some adults, who are fleeing from violence? 

I believe the citizens of this country need to do so really deep soul searching.

Throw The Children Out

We live at the southern end of the almost entirely unpopulated southern portion of the Central California coast.  This coastline is pretty empty all the way past Big Sur until just south of Carmel.  Right now we are experiencing the occasional arrival of what are called panga boats, which are overgrown rowboats, with outboard motors, used to haul illegal drugs from Mexico, off-loaded on our coast, then abandoned.  We have had a dozen or so come ashore around here. 

I mention the panga boats because of all of the media attention on immigration, and the hysteria over securing our southern border against the “invasion” of 50,000+ children who supposedly bring with them all sorts of diseases, criminals and terrorists.  Since all of this ranting is usually expostulated in one sentence, it is difficult to determine if the ranter thinks the children are bringing the diseases along with being criminals and terrorists or just diseases and the people sometimes accompanying them are the criminals and terrorists. 

My question is why we are not as hysterical over securing our border with Canada?  Certainly most Canadians who are much closer to Washington do not to want to immigrate here at the moment with all of the insanity going on in Washington and other places, but certainly if criminals and terrorists had an overwhelming desire to enter the United States they could do so by crossing our border with Canada, or by getting into a panga boat in Mexico and beaching it up here.  No sweat!  Easily done.

My point in all of this is not that there isn’t a humanitarian crisis on our southern border, because of course there is.  All one has to do is realize these are children – not criminals or terrorists, and that they receive medical care when they get here.  Although even this is excoriated by some, such as Rep.Mo Barker of Missouri who stated that these children are coming here for all of the free stuff that President Obama is giving them, including food. 

Considering our coasts and northern border are such sieves, why all of the hysteria over the southern border?  The old saw about the immigrants taking American jobs is really old and pretty much has been debunked over time.  What the newer immigrants are taking is the jobs Americans are not willing to take – the minimum wage jobs in restaurants and on farms, for example.  So what are they afraid of?  Since most of the Congressmen and Congresswomen freaking out about the border are not white, one could assume it is a racial problem.  Which some of it is, but I contend that it is also a religious problem. 

A bill introduced into the Legislature recently to Honor Pope Francis received only 19 of 221 Republicans on the basis that the Pope is “too liberal”.  The request to honor him was “for his inspirational statements and actions” as well as his goals to ameliorate inequality and promote solidarity.

 And what exactly did Pope Francis say to deserve such ire? Last year he wrote:

I am interested only in helping those who are in thrall to an individualistic, indifferent and self-centered mentality to be freed from those unworthy chains and to attain a way of living and thinking which is more humane, noble and fruitful, and which will bring dignity to their presence on this earth.
...
Some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system.

These refugees are from countries that could be construed to be Catholic, and thus to have the same views as the Pope, although it is only non-Catholics who would believe that.  Nevertheless, these ideas are to some in this country to be almost treasonous.  The idea that we would actually love our neighbor as ourselves; treat others as we would like to have them treat us; or especially Jesus’ admonition to harm not one hair on the head of a child or it would be better that a mill stone be tied around that person’s neck and be thrown into the deepest ocean (paraphrased) apparently do not appear in the Bibles these Republicans say they use, and that they contend should form the basis of our government.

It is my contention that this is what is freaking these right-wing radical fundamentalists out of their ever lovin’ gourds.  That somehow allowing, as Ronald Reagan called them, “the brown hordes” into our country will somehow undermine their power.  And as I have said before, when one believes that one has been chosen by God to lead a country, then anyone or anything that may endanger that must be stopped by any means possible. 

In fact, according to an article cited in Daily Kos, is the following is a statement by Rep. Steve King:

During a conference call last month with the National Emergency Coalition, Rep. Steve King said that the U.S. needs to crack down on immigration because our nation’s borders were established by God. Disrespecting the borders, the congressman suggested, is disrespecting God’s will.

I think, ladies and gentlemen, it is time to dump the old adage we were taught by our parents:  never discuss politics, finances, sex or religion.  The finances and sex probably ought to stay private, but we have got to start discussing the views of this fundamentalist right-wing group, led by the likes of Ted Cruz and Steve King.  These people are getting alarming.