Murdering Christmas

By Capt. Fogg

Make no mistake about it, what the insurgents are calling the War on Christmas is nothing but an assault on our religious freedom and like a dog with a bone, or a teenager on the telephone, they will not stop of their own accord.

"There are people out there who are rewriting history and people who are buying into it because they never learned history:"

said the fellow next to me at the bar, a former teacher whose wife is a Glenn Beck devotee. We nodded together like bobble head dolls although I knew full well we were envisioning the same people on the opposite side of the game. He wasn't talking about the Fox people, the Fundamentalists, the sinister bastards rearranging the sets and props and actors on the stage of history to further their lust for power. The TV Christianists doing it under the pretext of educating the public that real history is fake history -- and at this time of year, although there are many distractions, their tawdry tableau is arranged to display the fiction of the Christian Fathers who intended that this country, the United States of America, be a "Christian nation" in the same fashion as medieval Europe.

I'm not in a position to say that we ever had an educational system that didn't serve as political indoctrination. I do remember being 'taught' that the Civil War wasn't about slavery, which institution was, as it was related, moribund already -- and of course General Custer was still being presented as a hero in my youth in the segregation era, but a long standing tradition of doing wrong is hardly an argument for continuing it, to anything but a reactionary mind.

"Can you imagine it? Some people are actually offended when I say Merry Christmas!"

said the man on TV. I turned on my new battery operated portable flat screen that I just bought as part of my home hurricane preparedness kit this morning and was reminded of the fact that if one can only get broadcast TV in this area, at least half of what you can receive are Jesus channels. Note that I didn't say Christian. There's a difference. Frankly, I've never encountered offense at these words, although I have seen the Pavlovian reaction: "well you can't say that any more." Yes you can.

"Can you imagine it, some schools are having 'Winter festivals!' What do they say? Merry cold weather? I don't like cold weather, I like CHRISSSSSSSSSTMAS!"

Indeed some people look carefully in your face to gauge any hidden reaction when they say the formula. Merry Christmas, for the next week is a test, a shibboleth, not a wish. "Are you one of us?"

Yes, some people are rewriting history, making up stories about Christmas being made illegal, Christians being persecuted; about big-box home improvement stores ignoring Christmas and acknowledging holidays of nefarious, un-American religions. They're good enough at the game and we're gleefully gullible enough that we can stand in the middle of an acre of Christmas trees in the Home Depot parking lot, arms laden with the Christmas junk just purchased inside, and believe that the undoubtedly MuslimJewishAtheist owners thereof are trying to take away your right to worship trees and reindeer and a jolly fat saint. Merry Christmas -- say it often - say it ugly.

And they're not going to stop. They're not going to go away. They're not going to shut up until enough of us shout them down and make what used to be a happy season into the war they, in their sinister, apocalyptic insanity, so devoutly wish for.

(Cross posted from Human Voices)

Obama, Clinton criticize Ugandan anti-gay legislation at National Prayer Breakfast sponsored by extremist theocratic group that sponsored Ugandan anti-gay legislation

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I think we'd all be better off without those stupid National Prayer Breakfasts, just as we'd certainly all be better off without "The Family" (aka The Fellowship), the extremist theocratic group that sponsored yesterday's stupid breakfast and that includes in its ranks high-ranking Republicans like Mark Sanford and John Ensign -- and that runs the infamous C Street House in Washington.

Stupid? No, dangerous is more like it. To me, such politico-religious events have no place in a free and democratic society.

Still, I must praise President Obama and Secretary Clinton for using the occasion to criticize Uganda's awful anti-homosexual legislation, which the president called "unconscionable" and "odious."

That legislation, you see, was backed by... The Family/Fellowship. Indeed, it was a member of "The Family" who introduced the bill in the Ugandan Parliament. As I wrote back in November:

It's telling that a major force behind the Republican Party, and American conservatism generally, backs such appalling legislation. These people seem to have more in common with Uganda, Saudi Arabia, and other such illiberal places that they do with their own country and its liberal democratic principles. But then, for all their pro-American jingoism, they're actually quite un-American in terms of what they would like to do to America, and to the world, which is to remake it in the image of their own fundamentalism, including at the expense of basic human rights.

And yet, why is a so-called "National Prayer Breakfast" organized by these Christianist thugs -- thugs who think gays should be executed -- a major event in Washington? Why is it so significant that Obama, Clinton, and so many other major figures attend?

Uganda's legislation is appalling, but so too is "The Family" -- and so too is the ongoing political influence of "The Family" in Washington, and indeed at the highest levels of American politics.

For more, via Bilerico (with a must-read post on Uganda, "The Family," and the National Prayer Breakfast), here's Jeff Sharlet, author of The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power, on Rachel Maddow last year:

U.S. weapons revealed to have secret Biblical messages

By Michael J.W. Stickings

This is stunning, really, until you realize this is the U.S. we're talking about, the U.S. military, which is heavily Christianized, until, that is, you grasp the connection between U.S. militarism and Christian theocratism, both of which are central to a certain interpretation of the the American project.

ABC News:

Coded references to New Testament Bible passages about Jesus Christ are inscribed on high-powered rifle sights provided to the United States military by a Michigan company, an ABC News investigation has found.

The sights are used by U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and in the training of Iraqi and Afghan soldiers. The maker of the sights, Trijicon, has a $660 million multi-year contract to provide up to 800,000 sights to the Marine Corps, and additional contracts to provide sights to the U.S. Army.

*****

One of the citations on the gun sights, 2COR4:6, is an apparent reference to Second Corinthians 4:6 of the New Testament, which reads: "For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ."

Other references include citations from the books of Revelation, Matthew and John dealing with Jesus as "the light of the world." John 8:12, referred to on the gun sights as JN8:12, reads, "Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life."

Trijicon confirmed to ABCNews.com that it adds the biblical codes to the sights sold to the U.S. military. Tom Munson, director of sales and marketing for Trijicon, which is based in Wixom, Michigan, said the inscriptions "have always been there" and said there was nothing wrong or illegal with adding them. Munson said the issue was being raised by a group that is "not Christian." The company has said the practice began under its founder, Glyn Bindon, a devout Christian from South Africa who was killed in a 2003 plane crash.

Actually, "U.S. military rules specifically prohibit the proselytizing of any religion in Iraq or Afghanistan and were drawn up in order to prevent criticism that the U.S. was embarked on a religious 'Crusade' in its war against al Qaeda and Iraqi insurgents." But let's face it, some rules are more honour'd in the breach, as they say (and, yes, I realize that's not really what Hamlet meant).

No, this is not to say that the U.S. military, or the U.S. government, actually condones explicit Christianism with respect to its missions, though there is undoubtedly a significant fundamentalist and theocratic Christian element in the military, and no doubt many in the military see what they do in those terms, that is, as fighting for "the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ," or however they might put it.

But why is this only coming out now? Was this essentially condoned, and even approved of, by the military brass and kept quiet?

Andrew Sullivan: "This is such a great idea in a war where we are supposed to be fighting for democracy, not one religion's supremacy over another. But one also wonders how on earth the teachings of Jesus could find their way into a gun. Or, for that matter, find a way to justify the torture of prisoners. But, hey, that's the Christianist version of Jesus: a war-making torturer of Muslims."

How? Well, ask Trijicon. Ask the U.S. military, which procured these sights. It seems to me that answers are desperately needed. Answers, and an explanation, and an apology, and a guarantee that it will never happen again.

Is it any wonder the U.S. is so despised by so many around the world? And is it any wonder there is so much skepticism of U.S. intentions?

Specifically, is it any wonder Muslims doubt America's supposed commitment to liberty and democracy -- to put it nicely?

I realize that Muslim jihadists are waging a war on their own religious terms, but that doesn't justify American Christianists waging a war on their religious terms.

America is supposed to be different, isn't it?

Well, maybe not.

(For more, check out J. Thomas Duffy's post below.)

Holiday of Hate

by Capt. Fogg

Michelle Malkin is talking about Christmas cheer. Yes, it's like Kim Jong Il talking about threats to civil liberties, only worse, because we don't have Fox News bleating his demented ravings or calling them "conservative comment."

Yes, it's the atheists, as though they were a group: it's the atheists, the non-believers who are getting in the way of her cheerful enjoyment of Christmas and the atheists who should be treated like "Internet trolls." That, I presume, means to ignore them. Of course, in Fox speak, that means to continue their mythical battle between retail Christianity and the nefarious forces of religious freedom.

Gretchen Carlson, who apparently has a good shot at surpassing Malkin for sheer vituperative viciousness disagrees, saying that religious freedom will be the death of Christianity.

"If you don't stand up and fight for it, it might just disappear! I'm talking about Christianity!"

No, you're not, you're talking about forced unanimity and mandatory expressions of official faith. Christianity thrived actual persecution for enough time to make me doubt that it's future is in jeopardy , at least from other religions, and it has thrived through persecutions of it's own, but it's having a tougher time in some places that leave everyone alone to celebrate if and when and how they like and restrain them from forcing their practices and rituals on others.

Back before Christianity was coopted by those who play to the stupid and ignorant and hateful; back before Fox News and the Aryan Nation, it was an inclusive holiday. As a non-Christian and an atheist and someone who knows all too much about Christian history, about early Christian, Greco-Persian, Roman and Norse practices that form the basis of Christmas: as someone who knows how the holiday (and yes, it's a goddamn holiday) owes more to Coca-Cola, Hallmark and Charles Dickens than to some Jewish baby born to a teenage mother in April of an indeterminate year about 2000 years ago, I've always celebrated it anyway. After all Christmas as we know it is an American holiday and one that used to bring about a spirit of tolerance, brotherhood and generosity to a unique degree. It was a holiday that brought out the liberal in most of us.

Now that it's become a bloody piece of meat in the claws of harpies like Malkin and Carlson, now that we've become as stupid and superstitious and as ready to rend our neighbors as any of our subhuman cousins at the behest of Fox and its stable of demons, I'm no longer interested. Its just another hot poker in the dungeons of the Fox inquisition.

Of course if their were any real Christians in this country they might propose at least to ignore this attempt to make it a holiday of hate, but perhaps that, like liberty and the pursuit of happiness just another lost hope of the secular humanists who first dreamed of it.


Cross posted from Human Voices

Burning crosses for sale! Get yours now!

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I'm thinking this might be a Sign of the Apocalypse. Whatever it is, it's a sign of something ugly.

The American Family Association, a right-wing Christianist organization founded by Donald Wildmon, is offering, for sale, this "stunning Christmas cross," "an effective way to express your Christian faith this Christmas season to honor our Lord Jesus." It's "5.5 feet tall, with 210 individual ultra bright lights." And the "suggested donation" (i.e., cost) is only $81.85! And SHIPPING IS INCLUDED!

Oh, and does it not look like it's burning?

(I'm sure it'll go over well in, oh, say, Mississippi.)

Needless to say, there is something deeply offensive about this, but, then, the AFA is itself deeply offensive, and always has been. Simply put, it is one of the more extreme Christianist organizations around, with efforts directed at boycotting companies and organizations that do not align with its extremist, hate-filled agenda. For example, in 2005, it boycotted Ford for advertising in gay magazines and supporting gay-rights organizations. It is also anti-Semitic, blaming Jews for obscenity in the media.

Back in the '70s, Wildmon first made name for himself, even becoming a sort of Christianist celebrity, going after TV shows like Three's Company, M*A*S*H, and Dallas. But while he and the AFA address pornography and alleged obscenity generally, as well as abortion, their main issue is gay rights, including same-sex marriage, using a substantial media platform, including 180 radio stations, and various activism efforts, including through a network of 3.4 million subscribers to e-mail "Action Alerts," to promote its anti-gay cause. (For more, see here.)

And now it's selling what looks like a burning cross "to remind your friends, family, neighbors, and all who drive by your home, office, or church of the real meaning of Christmas."

Which, apparently, is hate.

(Hat tip: No Blood for Hubris.)

Headline of the Day (James Dobson edition)

By Michael J.W. Stickings

From ABC News:

Dobson to Attack Obama Tuesday for Distorting the Bible, Having a "Fruitcake" Interpretation of the Constitution

Dobson's 18-minute radio segment has already been taped. It will air today. And, in it, he will say this: "I think he's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own worldview, his own confused theology."

Of course, that "traditional understanding of the Bible" underpins the fascist authoritarianism that is the core of Dobson's christianism, both in the home and in society in general.

In that christianist society, women ought to stay home, gays ought to be reformed, and children ought to obey: "By learning to yield to the loving authority... of his parents, a child learns to submit to other forms of authority which will confront him later in his life -- his teachers, school principal, police, neighbors and employers." And to be physically punished: "It is not necessary to beat the child into submission; a little bit of pain goes a long way for a young child. However, the spanking should be of sufficient magnitude to cause the child to cry genuinely."

Nothing tells you you're a good and decent human being quite like being attacked by the likes of James Dobson.

Hillary and The Fellowship

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Mother Jones wrote about it last September. I wrote about it in February. And here, The Atlantic's Joshua Green reminds us of an important piece he wrote on Clinton, some of which was about it, The Fellowship, back in November 2006. Green also links to an important Harper's piece published in March 2003 -- written by Jeff Sharlet, who has written a soon-to-be-released book on The Fellowship called The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power. The New Republic's Noam Scheiber has more here.

The media have been all over Obama and Wright. Just to be fair, they should be all over Clinton and The Fellowship, the right-wing Washington prayer group led by one Douglas Coe.

Would you care to explain yourself, Mrs. Clinton? In a speech, maybe? Say, on the separation of church and state? Or on how this secretive organization is working to christianize the upper echelons of the political and business worlds?

Or perhaps you'd just care to explain yourself?

**********

Via Chris Orr at The Plank, I see that Hillary's pastor, Dean Snyder of the United Methodist Foundry Church, thinks Jeremiah Wright is "an outstanding church leader" and "a profound voice for justice and inclusion in our society."

Chris: "Does this mean Hillary should 'choose' to attend a new church? After all, her pastor is aggressively defending what she has described as 'hate speech.'"

Good question, good point.

Mrs. Clinton?

Obama: "I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy."

By Michael J.W. Stickings

As I mentioned yesterday, there has been much ado over some inflammatory comments by Jeremiah Wright, the retiring pastor of Obama's church in Chicago, Trinity United Church of Christ.

There has also been a good deal of unfairness and imbalance in the coverage of this alleged controversy, one fed lustily by Obama's opponents and willingly taken up by a debased media establishment out to boost ratings and its own narcissistic sense of self-importance by sensationalizing the Obama-Clinton race and more specifically to take down the frontrunner -- namely, Obama himself. There has simply been no equal and parallel coverage of McCain's ties to John Hagee and the christianist right, nor of Clinton's ties to Republican christianist fundamentalists in Washington. Instead, the focus has been disproportionately on Obama, and, as a result, he has been forced to respond.

And he did so yesterday at The Huffington Post. Make sure to read the entire piece. Here are a few key passages:

Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue.

*****

The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation. When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign. I made it clear at the time that I strongly condemned his comments. But because Rev. Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because of my strong links to the Trinity faith community, where I married my wife and where my daughters were baptized, I did not think it appropriate to leave the church.

Let me repeat what I've said earlier. All of the statements that have been the subject of controversy are ones that I vehemently condemn. They in no way reflect my attitudes and directly contradict my profound love for this country.

An admirable and worthy response, in my view.

No doubt it will not be enough to satisfy Obama's opponents, however, both those who support Clinton and Republicans generally, but he affirmed here that he is a proud and patriotic American, a man of genuine Christian faith (even if Clinton, who knows better, waffles when asked whether he might be a Muslim; even if 13 percent of Americans think he's a Muslim, for such is the power of the smear campaign lined up against him; and even if his opponents are appealing to "casual prejudice," to anti-Muslim bigotry), a presidential candidate who can defend himself magnanimously yet forcefully, a leader who can rise above the ugliness of the political world while still battling to make that world a better place.

No, his opponents won't be satisfied, but, then, they never will. Campaigning from the gutter, all they can do is hurl mud and dirt and filth and shit at him, hoping something, anything, will stick, the lies and delusions of foul and corrupt politics, and of desperation.

But Obama has done what he needed to do, and he did so without lowering himself to that level, without succumbing to the allure of the gutter.

Is it any wonder he continues to inspire so many of us? Is it any wonder he has become one of the great leaders of our time?

Much ado about Jeremiah Wright

By Michael J.W. Stickings

There is much ado at the moment over some imflammatory comments made by "Obama's Pastor," Jeremiah Wright. In brief, Wright has said that the U.S. government gives drugs to and builds prisons for blacks, that blacks should sing "God Damn America," not "God Bless America," and that it was America's own terrorism that brought on the attacks of 9/11.

Now, to be fair, some of what Wright said is fair game. Like it or not -- and the truth hurts -- the U.S. did drop atomic bombs on Japan, killing tens of thousands, and the U.S. has supported some rather nasty regimes throughout its history, notably during the Cold War years but also during the present so-called war on terror. Is there a connection between America's foreign policy and what happened on 9/11? Yes. Osama bin Laden himself has said so quite clearly again and again. Does that excuse what heppened on 9/11? Of course not.

But let's leave all that aside for now. I'd like to make a few comments as this story relates to the current presidential race:

1) Obama has been quite close to Wright. Obama has referred to him as "an old uncle". Wright married Obama and his wife. He also baptized their two daughters. Conservatives like Roger Simon are saying that Obama has some explaining to do, and, to be fair, I do think Obama needs to respond more forcefully than he has to some of Wright's comments, not least because, with this, Wright has become both a campaign issue and a media sensation. And yet, he has already distanced himself from Wright. "The violence of 9/11 was inexcusable and without justification," he has said. "It sounds like he was trying to be provocative." A bit too provocative, no doubt. Obama's opponents are trying to connect him more closely to Wright -- guilt by association and all that -- but Obama has been clear in his condemnation of his pastor's inflammatory comments.

Steve Benen: "I suppose the reflexive response would be to argue that if John McCain's embrace of John Hagee and Rod Parsley are offensive, then Obama's connection to Wright is just as bad. Perhaps, but there is a key difference -- Obama has denounced Wright's more extreme statements and made clear he 'deeply disagrees' with the offensive remarks. McCain prefers to pretend that Hagee's and Parsley's extremism is innocuous and barely worth commenting on."

Which brings me to:

2) While there has been much ado over the Obama-Wright connection, just as there was much ado over the supposed Obama-Farrakhan connection, there was almost no ado over the much closer and much more noxious McCain-Hagee connection. While Obama has rejected and denounced Farrakhan -- remember Clinton's desperate pushing of that point? -- and has similarly come out firmly against Wright, McCain has accepted Hagee's embrace without the media bothering to call him on it. While McCain gets away with cozying up to an equal opportunity bigot (anti-Catholic, anti-Muslim, etc.), Obama finds himself the target of yet another smear campaign, one his opponents are more than happy to feed and the media are more than happy to report with glee.

3) Meanwhile, speaking of smear campaigns, a new poll shows that 13 percent of Americans think Obama is a Muslim. Not that there's anything wrong with being a Muslim, of course, even if some on the right think there is (Muslim = terrorist), but this is a direct result, I think, of the appeal to "casual prejudice" that is a key component of the Republican attack machine, as well as of the Clinton campaign (if to a less malignant degree). Now, the implication will be that Obama is either a Muslim or a member of an anti-American, quasi-Christian church. Either way, the smearing will continue.

4) Obama is being forced to address not just his faith but the practice of his faith, forced to answer questions about his church and his pastor. But what about McCain? Again, the media have shown little to no interest in exploring and exposing the Hagee connection, or in addression McCain's religious views generally. And what about Clinton?

Yes, as we begin a new paragraph, what about her? Let me quote again from a Mother Jones article on which I posted early last month: "Through all of her years in Washington, Clinton has been an active participant in conservative Bible study and prayer circles that are part of a secretive Capitol Hill group known as the Fellowship. Her collaborations with right-wingers such as Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) and former Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) grow in part from that connection."

As I put it then: It would be good to know what Clinton's views are with respect to this "spiritual war," would it not? Surely there are other faith groups she could have joined. Why this one? Was it all an act of triangulation, an effort to reach out to conservatives -- and in particular to her conservative colleagues in the Senate? Or does she actually believe in the Fellowship and its goals, in bringing Jesus, the christianist Jesus, into public life, into her public life, into whatever office she holds? If so, what specifically does she believe? Or is she somehow being duped, an victim of the christianist strategy of "cobelligerency," whereby "conservatives sit pretty and wait for liberals looking for common ground to come to them," pulling them to the right and turning them into allies, witting or otherwise, of their noxious agenda? More urgently, what would any of this mean if she were elected to the White House in November? Are we confident we know the real Hillary Clinton? Would she work to guide the country in a more progressive direction, or would she be, in essence, the Fellowship's liberal in the Oval Office, a friendly liberal willing and eager to do some christianist bidding?

Valid questions, no? And yet the media aren't exploring and exposing this either. It is Obama who is forced to distance himself form the likes of Farrakhan and Wright, while few if any questions are asked about McCain and Hagee or Clinton and Santorum and Brownback and their secret little christianist group on Capitol Hill.

Yes, Obama may need to say more about Wright, but there is clearly a disturbing imbalance here.

Evangelical assholery

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The AP is reporting that James Dobson, child abuse advocate and founder of Focus on the Family, will endorse Mike Huckabee for president.

No surprise there. Dobson hates McCain, just like he hates anyone who doesn't kowtow to his right-wing Christianist agenda -- and to him personally. In fact, he hates McCain so much he won't even vote for him come November. Not that he'll vote Dem or anything, he'll just sit on his ass and not vote at all.

Should he stay in the race -- and note that he likes and respects McCain, unlike Jimmy D. -- Huckabee will almost certainly get a boost from this, just as he'll get a boost from Romney's withdrawal. But it won't matter. Huckabee may be a social conservative, but he isn't what the anti-McCain purificationists of the conservative movement are looking for. While he could make some races more competitive, it's doubtful he'll stay in the race much longer.

The truth that the right now faces is that McCain will be the GOP's nominee for president, a nominee without the support of most conservatives, a nominee loathed by many among the party's core constituencies (justifiably or not).

All the Dobson endorsement means now is that Huckabee is sure to be on McCain's veep shortlist.

Is Hillary Clinton a theocrat?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I think it's a question that needs to be asked -- and answered. Like this one, posed by Mother Jones: "Is she triangulating -- or living her faith?" Or both. Consider:

Clinton's God talk is more complicated -- and more deeply rooted -- than either fans or foes would have it, a revelation not just of her determination to out-Jesus the gop, but of the powerful religious strand in her own politics. Over the past year, we've interviewed dozens of Clinton's friends, mentors, and pastors about her faith, her politics, and how each shapes the other. And while media reports tend to characterize Clinton's subtle recalibration of tone and style as part of the Democrats' broader move to recapture the terrain of "moral values," those who know her say there's far more to it than that.

Through all of her years in Washington, Clinton has been an active participant in conservative Bible study and prayer circles that are part of a secretive Capitol Hill group known as the Fellowship. Her collaborations with right-wingers such as Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) and former Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) grow in part from that connection. "A lot of evangelicals would see that as just cynical exploitation," says the Reverend Rob Schenck, a former leader of the militant anti-abortion group Operation Rescue who now ministers to decision makers in Washington. "I don't... there is a real good that is infected in people when they are around Jesus talk, and open Bibles, and prayer."

Make sure to read the entire piece. It's quite long, but it's also extremely important.

I have no doubt that Clinton is a solid liberal, progressive on some issues, less so on others, and is not some sort of christianist theocrat out to impose a right-wing religious agenda on America. And yet, one wonders:

When Clinton first came to Washington in 1993, one of her first steps was to join a Bible study group. For the next eight years, she regularly met with a Christian "cell" whose members included Susan Baker, wife of Bush consigliere James Baker; Joanne Kemp, wife of conservative icon Jack Kemp; Eileen Bakke, wife of Dennis Bakke, a leader in the anti-union Christian management movement; and Grace Nelson, the wife of Senator Bill Nelson, a conservative Florida Democrat.

Clinton's prayer group was part of the Fellowship (or "the Family"), a network of sex-segregated cells of political, business, and military leaders dedicated to "spiritual war" on behalf of Christ, many of them recruited at the Fellowship's only public event, the annual National Prayer Breakfast. (Aside from the breakfast, the group has "made a fetish of being invisible," former Republican Senator William Armstrong has said.) The Fellowship believes that the elite win power by the will of God, who uses them for his purposes. Its mission is to help the powerful understand their role in God's plan.

It would be good to know what Clinton's views are with respect to this "spiritual war," would it not? Surely there are other faith groups she could have joined. Why this one? Was it all an act of triangulation, an effort to reach out to conservatives -- and in particular to her conservative colleagues in the Senate? Or does she actually believe in the Fellowship and its goals, in bringing Jesus, the christianist Jesus, into public life, into her public life, into whatever office she holds? If so, what specifically does she believe? Or is she somehow being duped, an victim of the christianist strategy of "cobelligerency," whereby "conservatives sit pretty and wait for liberals looking for common ground to come to them," pulling them to the right and turning them into allies, witting or otherwise, of their noxious agenda?

More urgently, what would any of this mean if she were elected to the White House in November? Are we confident we know the real Hillary Clinton? Would she work to guide the country in a more progressive direction, or would she be, in essence, the Fellowship's liberal in the Oval Office, a friendly liberal willing and eager to do some christianist bidding?

I'm not at all confident. For a long time, my reservations about Clinton had largely to do with her triangulating positions on Iraq, Iran, and foreign policy generally. More recently, I have been appalled by some of what I have heard from her on the campaign trail. But there is this other Hillary, the Hillary who reaches out to, and cozies up with, the likes of Brownback and Santorum, the Hillary who attracts Newt Gingrich, the Hillary who wants to work with Republicans to get things done, things Republicans but not her fellow Democrats may want done. This other Hillary is hardly someone I want in the White House.

Again, we need answers to the questions posed above. But since there likely won't be any answers forthcoming, and certainly not satisfactory answers, we need to think carefully about what a Clinton presidency, a second one, would mean.

**********

As I have said before, I think that both Clinton and Obama could be good, even great, presidents but that I do not much care for either one. (For a thoughtful critique of Obama, see here.)

Just days before Super Tuesday, I'm still not sure where I stand. (It was with Edwards, alas.) Which is perhaps for the best. I'll support whoever emerges as the nominee, no matter what. (There's no way I'm supporting a Republican.)

It's just that these reservations are tough to overlook. And they seem, on both sides, to be growing.

Crazy like Mike

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Mike Huckabee rose to prominence seemingly out of nowhere, skyrocketing up the polls, capturing Iowa, and emerging as the presumptive frontrunner, all the while becoming a media darling -- remember that Frank Rich called him the Obama of the GOP -- but, as his star fades, as the phenomenon withers, as his candidacy collapses, the man is getting more and more extreme, more and more disgusting. Or, perhaps, the real Huckabee is coming out, the real Huckabee who worked to parole a convicted rapist while governor of Arkansas, the Christianist Huckabee, ignorant and stupid, the bigot, the fool.

It is desperation, perhaps, that is brining out the real Huckabee. He may have won Iowa, but he is, in this race, a loser, and what he is doing, I think, is trying to attract the hardcore Christianist vote, more broadly the social conservative vote. Thompson and Romney have secured much of that vote, but Huckabee's only chance of turning around his failing campaign -- and it is slim, to say the least -- is to out-crazy them. (And to out-good-ol'-boy them: He seems to have a certain George Allen-like fondness for the Confederate flag, even saying this: "[I]f somebody came to Arkansas and told us what to do with our flag, we'd tell them what to do with the pole, that's what we'd do." Charming. And rather un-presidential, no?)

The other day, as many of you surely know by now, Huckabee declared that the Constitution should be amended "according to God's standards," that is, that America should be a Christianist country with Christianist laws governed by a Christianist man (and it must be a man), that is, a country governed by him and the laws of his god as he understands and enforces them. (Note: This is Christianist, not Christian. Christianism is the right-wing political ideology espoused by fanatics like Huckabee. See Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism by Michelle Goldberg.)

What would it mean to bring the Constitution, and the country, into line with "God's standards" (as Huckabee defines them)? In an interview with a religious website, as reported by TPM's Greg Sargent, Huckabee shed some light on this, as well as on some of his core beliefs (and political opinions):

QUESTIONER: Is it your goal to bring the Constitution into strict conformity with the Bible? Some people would consider that a kind of dangerous undertaking, particularly given the variety of biblical interpretations.

HUCKABEE: Well, I don't think that’s a radical view to say we're going to affirm marriage. I think the radical view is to say that we're going to change the definition of marriage so that it can mean two men, two women, a man and three women, a man and a child, a man and animal. Again, once we change the definition, the door is open to change it again. I think the radical position is to make a change in what’s been historic.

Yes, that's right. Huckabee, channelling Rick Santorum, connected homosexuality to polygamy, pedophilia, and bestiality. His view, like Santorum's, and a common one among not just among Christianists but on the right generally, is that allowing gay marriage would be the thin end of the wedge. After that, there's just no stopping anything and everything from being admitted into the definition of marriage -- and from being sanctioned generally. Broaden the definition of marriage to include gay couples and, before long, you'll have marital (and sexual) anarchy.

Have I mentioned that Huckabee is ignorant and stupid, a bigot and a fool?

No wonder so many Christianists love him, failing campaign or not.

**********

I suggested yesterday that a possible, and potentially quite formidable, GOP ticket is Romney-Huckabee (or perhaps McCain-Huckabee). Now I'm not so sure. Huckabee, who may be too crazy for the veep spot anyway, seems to be crazying himself out of consideration.

**********

Some of the saner conservatives out there aren't amused:

Andrew Sullivan: "I think of Huckabee as almost a comic vindication for those of us who have worried about the rise and rise of unopposed Christianism in the GOP. Except he's not a joke. He could actually win this thing." I don't think he can, but Andrew's point is well-taken. And, obviously, Andrew is liberal on this issue.

Stephen Bainbridge: "Mike Huckabee joins Mitt Romney on my personal list of candidates for whom I would not vote even if the only alternative is Hillary Clinton (in which case I’ll just sit home and complain)." Huckabee is a Christian Reconstructionist (see Goldberg's book), "which is pretty damn scary".

Eugene Volokh: "Huckabee seems to be deliberately trying to make an appeal to supposedly universal (at least nearly universal) traditions that go beyond just rejection of same-sex marriage. And that appeal is just factually unfounded, as his own religious histories and his own profession (as minister) should teach him." Eugene does not comment on Huckabee's "moral claims," which are simply appalling.

Michelle Malkin, who isn't sane, just hates him for his (relatively sane) positions on immigration.

**********

For more on Huckabee's views on homosexuality and gay marriage, see Steve Benen, RadicalRuss, John Aravosis, Will Bunch, and Kyle Moore.

Craziest Republican of the Day: Steve King

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Yet more right-wing cultural warmongering during the holiday season:

Rep. Steve King recently (R-IA) introduced legislation recognizing the "importance of Christmas and the Christian faith," despite previously opposing resolutions recognizing the Muslim celebration of Ramadan and the Hindu Diwali.

A spokesman for King told ThinkProgress that the congressman simply "thought it was important to honor Christmas" by introducing the bill. Yet [yesterday] on Fox News, King went further, decrying an "assault on Christmas" from "secularists" who want to "eradicate Christ from Christmas." Ignoring the Constitution, King claimed America is really a "Christian nation."

"And let's worship Christ and let's celebrate Christmas," he added, as if somehow the overwhelming majority of Americans are not worshipping Christ and not celebrating Christmas.

If America is a religious nation at all, it is a deistic one, not a Christian one, at least not a Christian one in the sense that many on the theocratic right think it is, and certainly not a Christianist one.

Regardless, there is certainly no "assault on Christmas," and certainly no war.

Just who are these "secularists," these "naysayers"? Those who hold -- with the Founders, I might add -- that there is, and must continue to be, a constitutional separation of church and state? Those who respect, and wish to acknowledge the existence of, other faiths? Those who do not wish to see America become a Christianist theocracy?

Or, rather, are they just another Enemy dreamed up by the right to wage a culture war most Americans don't want waged, a war to divide Americans and to score political points off the wreckage?

I mean, take me, for example.

I'm a liberal, a Democrat, and a secularist. I do not believe in God, any God, any gods, and there is a great deal about organized religion, including Christianity, that I find objectionable, to put it mildly.

And yet I am not necessarily anti-religious. I am enough of an agnostic not to turn my secularism into ideology, and enough of a liberal, that most of all, not to want to intrude upon the private lives of others -- just so long as others accept the basic tenets and requirements of liberal society.

And I celebrate Christmas. For reasons of tradition, not faith, but this is still an important time of the year for me. The religious elements of Christmas may be of little concern to me, but there is obviously a great deal more to Christmas than what allegedly happened according to the Christian Gospels.

Even so, I do not wage war on those who celebrate Christmas for reasons of faith. And I am hardly an exception. There may be some secularists who oppose Christmas altogether, but most do not. Many of us celebrate it, in fact, even as we show respect for other traditions, other faiths, at this festive time of year.

So where, then, is the alleged "assault" coming from? Jews and Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists?

No, certainly not -- not in America, where a general culture of toleration prevails, not the culture of culture wars promoted on the right. Honestly, are there so many non-Christians marching in protest of Christmas? No.

If anything, most non-Christians, like many Christians, have come to view this time of year in more ecumenical terms, hence the recent elevation of Hannukah and other non-Christian celebrations to a more prominent status than they might otherwise enjoy, even within their own faiths, the purpose being to include as many faiths and believers as possible, not to exclude those who are not Christian.

That many on the right seek to wage cultural war at this time of year tells us a great deal about what the right is all about. It is about an America that is, essentially, un-American.