-Submitted by David Drumm (Nal), Guest Blogger
In a desperate attempt to distract the media away from the “Niggerhead” story, the Perry campaign used Rev. Robert Jeffress to claim that Mormonism is a cult. Jeffress, pastor of Dallas’ First Baptist Church, introduced Perry at the Values Voter Summit in Washington, D.C. Perry hasn’t been doing too well recently and his latest problem was the revelation that his family’s secluded West Texas hunting camp was known by the name painted on a flat rock near its gated entrance: Niggerhead.
Jeffress’s views on Mormonism are well-known to the Perry campaign. He has previously claimed that Mormonism is a cult and that “it is not Christianity, it is not a branch of Christianity.” Like a dog with a new toy, the media went chasing after this new story, forgetting all about the Niggerhead story. Perry just has to deny that he thinks Mormonism is a cult, and the media is left searching for a new toy.
Most evangelical Christians don’t consider Mormonism a Christian sect, so it doesn’t hurt Perry to remind those voters that he is a true Christian and his number one rival is not. If one believes that their faith is the one true faith, then different faiths are necessarily false and not to be tolerated.
I won’t be shedding any tears for Romney. You lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas. You pander to bigots, don’t be surprised when they turn on you.
H/T: Blue Texan, Right Wing Watch, Washington Post, AlterNet, Politico.
angrymanspeaks 1, October 9, 2011 at 12:53 pm
Jill,
You’re right. I’m sacared. I think alot of Liberals are. They see the danger that the Republican/tea Party represents and they feel abandoned by their president.
I agree we need action now but most important is to keep the republicans from forwarding their agenda. I truly believe we are in a 1933 moment. The danger is real. Our Hitler mat be closer to power than we think.
Over reacting? Perhaps. I doubt it but perhaps. Better that than under reacting and finding ourselves goose stepping through the Mall
================
I’ll just keep repeating it until the truth comes to the fore: There’s an unconstitutional program in play domestically — it’s a game-changer. It’s exposure will be a Watergate-like moment.
As “angrymanspeaks” said, “we are in a 1933 moment.”
Oro Lee,
If my comments to A Conservative Teacher would have been aimed at you, they would have been addressed to you as Oro Lee.
My comments were addressed to A Conservative Teacher as noted in my post and were in response to said poster’s post:
“A Conservative Teacher
1, October 9, 2011 at 10:33 am
A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.
Are you a bigot?”
I posted said response at 11:22 and took a few minutes to think about what I wanted to say to A Conservative Teacher’s question “Are you a bigot?” and, as a result, had not even read your post at 11:17. The fact that mine posted directly under yours had nothing to do with what you wrote or what I wrote … it was timing. I will now read your 11:17 post and respond. This will take a few minutes. It’s 12:54.
I find nothing within your post to disagree with and thus have no comment. 12:56
Jill,
You’re right. I’m sacared. I think alot of Liberals are. They see the danger that the Republican/tea Party represents and they feel abandoned by their president.
I agree we need action now but most important is to keep the republicans from forwarding their agenda. I truly believe we are in a 1933 moment. The danger is real. Our Hitler mat be closer to power than we think.
Over reacting? Perhaps. I doubt it but perhaps. Better that than under reacting and finding ourselves goose stepping through the Mall
Back to the thread. I seriously doubt the Perry camp intentionally called Jeffress to direct attention away form Gov. Good Hair’s picadilloes while shoring up his right-wing creds — -they’re not that smart. But Gov. GH can follow the $$$. Just what kind of donors might be among the congregants at FBC Dallas?
Jill wrote: “The things one fears are now. They must be stopped now. If the focus is not on NOW the people will lose. Lawlessness and barbaric cruelty will both continue and pass on to whomever is the next president unless lawlessness and barbaric cruelty are immediately taken on by the people.”
Words to be heeded…
“Here’s one thing I know for certain,” Obama said Thursday night. “The odds of me being re-elected are much higher than the odds of me being elected in the first place.” (posted by Blouise)
I don’t know… It’s been said that a person who is absolutely certain of anything is a fool. (We’ll see how it turns out.)
Given his performance, maybe another Dem should be nominated to run in 2012…
(Thanks for the great Andy Rooney piece regarding women of a certain age, Blouise.)
Raff, thank you,
Blousie, if “I’m dizzy from spinning … Conservatives are sooo oversensitive,” is aimed at me. I am not a conservative teacher, but having lived among them for half a century I try to teach about conservatives by offering an insight into their thinking. Let me offer another.
I have used the term “Evangelical” in keeping with its use in this thread. But what we are really talking about is Fundamentalism (this time with an evangelical flavor). While many Evangelics are Fundamentalists, not all are; and many non-Evangelics (any number of Catholic leaders) are Fundamentalists. And many other religions have their share of Fundamentalists, and they are all pretty much the same. (As if it is even relevant, I would be much less concerned whether Mitt is Mormon than if he is a fundamentalist Mormon).
Evangelical theology is primarily concerned (and I believe to a dangerous extreme) with the individual’s personal relationship with a personal God. Evangelic’s primary targets lie outside the church. The idea is reconciliation. Think Billy Graham.
Fundamentalism is primarily concerned with attacking belief systems which are not Evangelical — and its primary targets lie within Christiandom. The idea is confrontation and conflict. And when they conquer one opponent, they must find another or their reason for existence vanishes. Think any SBC leader in the last 20 years.
By mis-appropriating a word like “cult” and applying it to Catholics and Mormons, the Fundamentalist are engaged in a war of propaganda and not disciplined apologetics. They don’t teach, they pronounce and leave no room for the hearer to make its own decision. They become known for what they are against and not for what they stand. Stupid.
I do not think that I am oversensitive just because I understand fundamentalism’s impact outside the church (which can be major — see http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~altemey/) to represnt an even graver danger within the church.
A little bit of politics:
The Obama campaign believes that tying the eventual Republican nominee to an intransigent Congress, and the Tea Party, of which a majority of Americans also disapprove, will help keep him afloat, regardless of any waning enthusiasm for the president.
“Here’s one thing I know for certain,” Obama said Thursday night. “The odds of me being re-elected are much higher than the odds of me being elected in the first place.”
I feel both sadness and fear when I read so many articles on this blog about evil Republican candidates. I’m willing to guess that only a few readers of this blog would consider voting for a Republican presidential candidate with the possible exception of Ron Paul.
If people on this blog truly fear the election of a Republican, then we must ask an honest question. Why? Are we afraid that the candidate is a war monger, will increase the surveillance state, will destroy the social safety net, will refuse to turn away from oil and gas, will further impoverish the poor while enriching the banksters? I believe those are all well founded fears. So a second honest question must arise. Aren’t each of these things happening under a Democratic president right now? The answer to that question is, yes, they are. Therefore the problem should not be framed as, we are in mortal danger of all these terrible things happening should a Republican president be elected. The truth is, we are in mortal danger of them right now. They are not fears of the future, they are realities of the present.
The best way to confront these fears is not endless talk of future Republican candidates. Since lawlessness is occurring now, it must be confronted now. I truly believe the constant focus on Republican candidates is a soothing psychological defense mechanism for Democrats, one that Democrats must stop engaging in.
The things one fears are now. They must be stopped now. If the focus is not on NOW the people will lose. Lawlessness and barbaric cruelty will both continue and pass on to whomever is the next president unless lawlessness and barbaric cruelty are immediately taken on by the people.
If it were only one or a few articles on Republican candidates which occupied “liberal” sites I would not think much of it. But go to almost any “liberal” site and talk of Republican candidates will be the majority of political articles one can find. Meanwhile, the present danger committed by a Democratic president, aided by a bipartisan Congress and corrupt judicial system is ignored or minimized.
So let me stipulate that Rick Perry and Mitt Romney are very bad men who would be a disaster should they be elected. Now, let me also turn my full attention to the very bad man whose election as president is, right now, a complete disaster for our nation, other nation’s peoples and the the earth. I cannot stop a future disaster by ignoring the present disaster.
Oro,
The good Benedictine Sisters never told us that we were a cult! Great response.
A Conservative Teacher,
I’m dizzy from spinning … Conservatives are sooo oversensitive.
( A In B Situation Is Not Equivalent To X In Y Situation)
With the understanding that there is a lot of blurring at the border of Protestantism and Evangelical Christianity, I humbly offer the following analysis and hasten to point out that it is not true of all evangelicals.
When evangelicals use the word cult, they mean something different the general use of the word — satanist and voo doo and the like. “Cult” is used by evangelical Christians only of an organization that claims to be Christian – everything else is some other religion or pagan.
Evangelical Christianity is a subset — or sect, if you will — of Protestantism. The five theological pillars of Protestantism are the 5 Solas: Sola scriptura; Sola fide; Solus Christus or Solo Christo; and, Soli Deo gloria. Evangelicals believe that if a belief system leaves out any Sola or add to them, it is a cult. By this reckoning, evangelicals group Roman Catholics and LDS as cults.
Evangelicals have elevated veneration (or even worship) of Scripture over the other Pillars. Have less than a literal interpretation of the Scripture (as understood by Evangelicals) or wrongly apply its teachings, you may still be part of the Christian family — like reformed denominations — but your theology is flawed but not enough to keep the true seeker out of heaven.
Most Christian denominations (and many evangelicals) might consider LDS a sect; most evangelicals will not –it’s a cult (by their definition).
More proof that politics is local:
Harry Block is Allen’s meanest character. His relatives and ex-wives and girlfriends are upset about how he’s portrayed them in his writing, but now he’s suffering from writer’s block and, in a structure riffing on Bergman’s Wild Strawberries, revisiting them. Some of film’s best jokes are sight gags (one involving an actor who is, literally, “out of focus” and thus appears as a blur) but the dialogue is often brilliant, too, such as this exchange between Harry and his religiously observant sister, Doris. “You have no values. With you it’s all nihilism, cynicism, sarcasm, and orgasm.” Harry responds: “Hey, in France I could run for office with that slogan and win!”
Link
A Conservative Teacher1, October 9, 2011 at 10:33 am
A bigot is a person obstinately…..
——————————————————————
Synonyms: dogmatist, dogmatizer, partisan (also partizan), sectarian~Websters
by definition, all Teapartiers, 99% of the current politicians, ALL current Republicans in office….are bigots….
Perry and his ilk are from the perverted class.
A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.
Are you a bigot?
Puzzling asks, “How is Romney pandering to bigots? By simply speaking at the conference?”
Short answer: yes.
If you listen to the rhetoric coming out of the mouths of “values voters,” bigoted is the least of what you hear. Far worse is the insistence of drowning by bathtub of the gub’ment, followed by the ushering in of the coming theocratic oligarchy. Any candidate enables this view simply by speaking.
This isn’t a conference of flower-growers or foreign dignitaries. They want to take away the rights of those with whom they disagree, and they are not bashful about saying so.
The reason is Belief. This is what governs “values voters,” and it makes a piss-poor basis for sound public policy. Why we pay attention to what anyone says after they utter the powerless nonsense words, “I Believe…” is beyond me. Belief is not required for the universe to function.
How is Romney pandering to bigots? By simply speaking at the conference?
Thanks for clarifying that being an evangelical Christian is being a bigot by definition.
Thanks nal….