Over at The Daily Caller, there is a piece up that features Congressman Keith Ellison (D-MN) commenting on Herman Cain’s famous ‘Muslim litmus test’. In his comments, Rep. Ellison makes the point that:

“Well, you got violent Christians and good Christians,” he said. “You got violent Jews and good Jews. You got people of all — what he said about Muslims is true for every community. So it’s absurd that he would make a distinction when it comes to Muslims. Look, Mr. Cain has made a lot of statements about his hostility toward the Muslim community. Now trying to backtrack but not doing a good job of it.”

Ellison offered some advice for Cain – to review the Pledge of Allegiance and what it means in terms of inclusiveness.

“I would ask him to say look, the Pledge of Allegiance said ‘and liberty and justice for all.’ ‘All’ means all and doesn’t mean ‘except one group or another.’ I would ask Herman Cain to review that Pledge of Allegiance he swears when he gets up.”

Okay. Pledge of Allegiance. Good argument Congressman — but let’s take it a step further, shall we?

Let me back up a bit. Here are Herman Cain’s comments from earlier this year on Fox News Channel:

[A] reporter asked me would I appoint a Muslim to my administration? I did say no. And here’s why. But the reporter didn’t tell you this.

I would have to have people totally committed to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of this United States. And many of the Muslims, they are not totally dedicated to this country. They are not dedicated to our Constitution. Many of them are trying to force Sharia law on the people of this country.

My emphasis.

Mr. Cain professes to have a strong affinity towards the Constitution of the United States of America.

So, my question to Mr. Cain is this: have you actually read the Constitution? In particular, Article VI, Paragraph III:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Now, one could make the argument that White House staffers and Presidential appointees are not covered in this statement. But, my point is that, if Cain so highly regards the document, he should use it as a template for running his (hypothetical) administration.

If he’s going to use the U.S. Constitution as a guide in his decision-making, then there is no way that he should be comfortable with using religion as a factor in making staff appointments.

At the Republican Primary Debate in New Hampshire, Cain had to address this issue again:

[T]he statement was would I be comfortable with a Muslim in my administration, not that I wouldn’t appoint one. That’s the exact transcript.

And I would not be comfortable because you have peaceful Muslims and then you have militant Muslims, those that are trying to kill us.

And so, when I said I wouldn’t be comfortable, I was thinking about the ones that are trying to kill us, number one.

Secondly, yes, I do not believe in Sharia law in American courts. I believe in American laws in American courts, period. There have been instances -

(CHEERS AND APPLAUSE)

CAIN: There have been instances in New Jersey — there was an instance in Oklahoma where Muslims did try to influence court decisions with Sharia law. I was simply saying very emphatically, American laws in American courts.

KING: So, on that point, Governor Romney let me come to you on this.

What Mr. Cain is saying that he would have — my term, not his — a purity test or a loyalty test. He would want to ask a Muslim a few question or a few questions before he hired them, but he wouldn’t ask those questions of a Christian or Jew.

CAIN: Sorry. No, you are restating something I did not say, OK? If I may, OK?

KING: Please let’s make it clear.

CAIN: When you interview a person for a job, you look at their — you look at their work record, you look at their resume, and then you have a one-on-one personal interview. During that personal interview, like in the business world and anywhere else, you are able to get a feeling for how committed that person is to the Constitution, how committed they are to the mission of the organization –

KING: When I asked — I asked this question the other night, though, you said you want to ask a Muslim those questions but you didn’t you have to ask them to a Christian or a Jew?

CAIN: I would ask certain questions, John. And it’s not a litmus test. It is simply trying to make sure that we have people committed to the Constitution first in order for them to work effectively in the administration.

The bizarre applause after the Sharia law comment aside, if Herman Cain had simply said the words that I have emphasized, I wouldn’t be writing this post. Looking at a person’s education and record should be the only factors used when deciding whether or not to hire them.

This idea that you need to administer a religious litmus test — because no matter how much he protests, that is what Cain is suggesting — is insanity, pure and simple.

Roger Simon has an excellent op-ed at POLITICO, and I think that his words are very poignant:

You want to live in a country that has a litmus test for Muslims? You want to live in a country that demands loyalty oaths from Muslims?

Fine. Today, it will be the Muslims. Tomorrow, it will be you.

Indeed.

I suspect that I am the only political blogger who has not yet posted about the mosque/not mosque expected to be built/not built in a location somewhere near/not near ground zero in New York.

I have avoided this issue thus far because I feel a lot like this guy – or this guy – or perhaps like William Shakespeare – “It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.“ I see this as little more than a excuse by partisans and bloggers on both the right and left to flog their favorite bogeymen in the hope of securing a minor political advantage. The significance of this story is just not worth the ink and electrons spilled on it.

But, that has not stopped anyone else, so let me make my position on this question perfectly clear – This blogger stands firmly with Michael Bloomberg, Grover Norquist, Chris Christie, Joe Scarborough, Michael Gerson and Barack Obama (Friday, 8/13/10 version) in support or indifference to the location of the Cordoba project mosque – and stands in opposition to Harry Reid, Howard Dean and Barack Obama (Saturday 8/14/10 version) who do not explicitly support the location of the Cordoba project mosque.

In America, in matters of religious tolerance, there should be no close calls, no qualification of primary principles, and the first amendment should not be location dependent. I am not sympathetic to the distinction of “rights” vs. right which strikes me as a Clinton-esque parsing for those looking to rationalize forcing the Cordoba Project to move the mosque/cultural center.

I”m going to make this easy on myself and crib extensively from a previous post invoking the views of a founding father whose words are as relevant now as they were 230 years ago.

Thomas Jefferson writing in the third person, in a letter to Dr. Jacob De La Motta on the occasion of the 1820 dedication of a synagogue in Savannah, Georgia:

His short letter speaks to both the intent and core convictions of an architect of our country and constitution. Consider the pride and importance that Jefferson invests in the principle of religious freedom and diversity in this letter. He finds it “gratifying” that our country was the “first to prove to the world” the “two truths” that are the most beneficial to human society - “that man can govern himself”, and absolute “religious freedom” is the only answer to “religious dissension”.

Andrew Sullivan reminds us that Islam was explicitly included in Jefferson’s message of tolerance. He quotes from Jefferson’s autobiography where Jefferson expands on the intent of the Virginia Statute For Religious Freedom – “Jefferson On The Toleration Of Islam”:

Finally in a letter to Moredcai Manuel Noah, Jefferson notes that while protection of religious freedom under the law is a necessary condition, it is not sufficient to ensure tolerance and the fair and equitable treatment of all religious belief.

The work of religious tolerance was incomplete in the time of Jefferson, and remains incomplete today. Religious intolerance is an issue that every generation of Americans must face anew. As Americans of good will fought for the principle of religious freedom at the beginning of the American experiment, it falls to Americans of good will in each generation, of every religion, race and creed, to ensure that in their own time their generation remembers and understands that – as regards religion – “divided we stand.”

To wrap this up I will invoke a poet/philosopher of our own time – Mojo Nixon. While these lyrics were written in response to another civil libertarian challenge, I don’t think Mojo would mind my applying them here…

^{Cross-posted from Divided We Stand United We Fall}

UPDATED & EDITED: I added one word to the body of the post. You find it.

Note the big drop in the past week. Obama had been bumping along at around pretty much even approval/disapproval, but then he made a principled, correct stand on what religious freedom means to us a nation…and his approval drops?

And, by the way, this isn’t even a mosque. It’s a small prayer center inside of a muslim community center. Think of a YMCA with a chapel in it. That’s all that’s being proposed. I think when people here “mosque” they think of a big domed building that’s sitting right across from ground zero…but that ain’t it. This thing is two blocks away on a side street and tucked inside of a much larger proposed complex.

But wait…there’s more!

Pew finds that more Americans now think that Obama is a muslim.

Wanna know why?

When asked how they learned about Obama’s religion in an open-ended question, 60% of those who say Obama is a Muslim cite the media. Among specific media sources, television (at 16%) is mentioned most frequently. About one-in-ten (11%) of those who say Obama is a Muslim say they learned of this through Obama’s own words and behavior.

The ignorance is just jaw dropping. What’s more, this study was taken BEFORE the mosque thing popped up. So who knows what those numbers look like now.

It’s weeks like this that make me think this country could be doomed. Because if people are this uninformed (or willfully misinformed), how is any politician going to be able to sell us on what really needs to happen over the course of the next couple decades?

Those in the know realize that we have major pain ahead and that the course we’re on is unsustainable. However, Americans have been brought up to be selfish and greedy, and while that works at the corporate level to power innovation, it divorces us from the reality of what it means to be a unified nation. We are individuals, yes, but we must also understand that even though we have a huge amount of cultural, spiritual and political differences…we’re all in this together and it’s going to take all of us to dig ourselves out of the hole we’ve created. And it shouldn’t take something like 9/11 to rally us again.

Excuse me, but I’m now going to reread Watchmen.

I refuse to call it the Ground Zero mosque because, well, it’s not at Ground Zero. It’s close, but it’s not at the site…which I think most people who opposed it think it is.

But here’s the thing…looks like it’s moving to another part of the city.

From Haaretz:

After weeks of heated debate over plans for an Islamic community center near Ground Zero – the site of the 9/11 attacks on New York – it seems Muslim leaders will soon back down, agreeing to move to a new site.

The decision follows a high-profile campaign against the project that included advertisements on New York buses showing images of the burning Twin Towers, an iconic landmark razed when al-Qaida terrorists flew packed passenger planes into them in 2001. The New York Republican party is also said to be planning a hostile television campaign.

Every hack politician who has actively pushed this should be ashamed of themselves. This is a completely worthless debate, driven, might I add, by the same folks who cry every single day about their constitutional rights being violated.

And lest they forget another important point about why a mosque would be appropriate near Ground Zero…a reminder from the Village Voice…

Muslims were victims of 9/11, too. Sorry, but it’s true. And one was an NYPD cadet.

Heads up Republicans…politicizing this might drive some of the base to the polls this year, but it’ll drive nobody else. And as you continue to ostracize groups that are expanding, instead of having an open tent, you’re marginalizing your party in the long run. Because for every voter you keep with nonsense issue like this (and revising the 14th amendment), you lose 2 new voters in the future. Don’t say you weren’t warned.

UPDATED:
Looks like the report was false. The mosque is going forward.

The official Twitter account of Park51, the developer constructing the center, has now stepped in to deny the story. “Reports by Haaretz are completely false,” tweeted @Park51. “We are committed to plans of building Park 51 to serve the community of Lower Manhattan.

Score one for American media. And cross Haaretz off your list of sources for news on this story.

Good.

UPDATED UPDATE:
However, David Patterson is trying to get the mosque to move…

New York Gov. David Paterson (D) will meet with the imam and developer of the proposed mosque near Ground Zero “later this week” to discuss the possibility of removing the mosque to an “alternate location”, according to Rep. Peter King.

King, an outspoken opponent of placing the mosque and Islamic cultural center so close to where terrorists attacked on Sept. 11, 2001, received a call from Paterson this morning.

“We are working with the developers on a staff level but there have not been any formal discussions between the Governor and Imam or developer,” said Morgan Hook, a spokesman for Paterson. “However, we expect to have a meeting scheduled in the near future.”

Something tells me this will keep on going and going and going…

It’s official…he’s turning into a cult leader.

And no, I’m not kidding. He’s turning politics isn’t a religious movement. Listen to the ENTIRE audio clip down here or read the partial transcript I provided below. It’s scary how much he’s mixing the intentions of the Founders with those of God.

And here’s a partial transcript…

Yesterday, when I got off the air, I had a conversation between, um, Pat and myself and it lead to a meeting last night. Because, um, I’m going to, um, change the TV show again. I felt like, I, I mentioned last night that we were flying, circling an airport and I know the landing strip is down there, but the lights aren’t on. And I can’t see it yet, but I know we’re close and we’re circling. And this is not good enough.

And, um, I tell you, you don’t know…just like I don’t really know you, and I know in generalities, how hard you work and what you do and what your life is like…I don’t. I know in generalities. The same with you with me. We both have trust in each other that we’re doing everything in our power, and I have asked you recently, if you’re not doing that, to decide. Because now is the time. Are you here to relax and be entertained, or are you here, will you pick up the mantle left to you by the Founders to be a guardian of man’s freedom? Will you do it? Because your children will ask you what did you do? I believe your God will ask you what did you do.

We all find ourselves at a certain place at a certain time and we may not know what the role is we’re suppose to play, we may, in the end, we may not even know how much we effected different things, but we each are here and experience everything for a reason, that’s why I asked you yesterday…do not accept coincidence in your life. Look for the answers in your life, look for your answers in your life through coincidence, because there’s no such thing as a coincidence.

God is giving a plan I think to me that is not really a plan. And I stopped myself because I didn’t want to utter those things out loud, because that’s not exactly right, and it’s not.

The problem is that I think the plan that the Lord would have us follow is hard for people to understand. But I’m telling you, here’s what I feel with everything in me, and, if you’ve listened to this program for a long time, you know who I am. Um, and you know many of things I’ve done and said that have put me in, ya know, harm’s way one way or another, they always start at the same place, they always start at my gut or my heart, and then I figure it out as we go along. All the stuff that I feel has been important on the show has been things that I felt and didn’t understand.

Because of my track record with you who have been here for a long time. Because of my track record with you, I beg of you to help me get this message out, and I beg of you to pray for clarity on my part. The plan that He would have me articulate, I think, to you is “Get behind me.” And I don’t mean me, I mean Him. “Get behind Me. Stand behind Me.” I truly believe I have done years now of reading the Founders, their diaries, their letters, the Pilgrims, their diaries, their letters. I’ve held their letters in my hands. The exchanges between the Founders, I’ve held their actual letters in my hand. I have seen it with my own eyes…and I will tell you that God was instrumental and then knew it! They knew they had very little to do with it. They just stood where they were supposed to stand and they said the things that they were supposed to say as He directed. Some of them lost their way, some of them got it wrong, they got back and forth…they were human. But that’s what He’s asking us to do…is to stand peacefully, quietly, with anger, quiet with anger, loudly with truth.

Faith…is the answer. Get on your knees, don’t like it take a September 11th, get on your knees, please, I don’t care what church you go to, no church at all, I don’t care. Turn to Him.

When we were, and I’ve never told this story before…when we were starting the TV show, ya know, there were things that I did that I wouldn’t do now because I had to be more of an entertainer to get people to go, “What is this show at five o’clock?” I never said anything I didn’t believe, but I may have said things in an entertaining fashion. And I’m also, I also had to figure out, I’m a learning curve here, what is true and what is not and we were alone, and we still are. Nobody is helping us on this, we have to piece it together.

After that he talks about something regarding Van Jones and it’s just more of the same. He somehow “knew” about Van Jones, his producer found similar information, and he was led there by God…blah, blah. blah.

Listen, I’m not here to bash Beck’s faith. I’m an agnostic myself so I leave the possibility open for creators or a Creator, but to tie God to the intentions of the Founders…wow. I mean, it’s the logical next step in the evolution of a two-bit, opportunistic, intellectually dishonest, political radio shock jock, but yeah…wow.

One thing’s for sure…if the Tea Party ever wants to be taken seriously they’ll jettison this guy post haste. Of course…how can they since he has championed them from day one and is arguably the reason they’re getting so much mainstream media coverage.

Oh, the predicament!

First, take a look at the video…

Listen, I hate to beat up on Pat, especially since he’s not sounding too good these days, but this is more for those folks like Christy (his co-host in the video) than anybody else. Because this kind of nonsense needs to go away once Robertson’s generation passes. Otherwise, you will not be taken seriously.

I’m not saying Christians need to stop believing in evil, the Devil, etc. But this folklore is silly and the more the next generation of the devout focus less on it and more on helping those in need, the better.

Flipping through the channels last night, I happened upon this programming masterpiece and lingered because two attractive, lingerie-clad women were making out on a bed. The scene ended and the show was REALLY bad so I moved on.

My beautiful wife looked up from her laptop and said something to the effect of “WTF is wrong with our society that ‘hot girl-on-girl’ action is practically shoved down our throats while gays have to fight tooth and nail to get married?”

She’s right, there’s an interesting dichotomy there – and I’ve been thinking about it all day because I live in NJ and listen to the radio at work. I’ve heard this anti-gay marriage commercial thirteen times today. I despise these commercials and feel sorry for the people desperately clinging to such hate and fear in the name of God. I’ve written to the radio station and my representatives, I vote my conscience and do what I can for change. Now I’m just sharing my frustration with the good folks at Donklephant.

Doug points this one out, and if true, well, no wonder France took a pass on backing us in Iraq.

French journalist Jean-Claude Maurice recounts the tale in his book release in March, Si Vous le Répétez, Je Démentirai (If You Repeat it, I Will Deny).

From Secular Humanism:

President George W. Bush told French President Jacques Chirac in early 2003 that Iraq must be invaded to thwart Gog and Magog, the Bible’s satanic agents of the Apocalypse.

Honest. This isn’t a joke. The president of the United States, in a top-secret phone call to a major European ally, asked for French troops to join American soldiers in attacking Iraq as a mission from God.

Now out of office, Chirac recounts that the American leader appealed to their “common faith” (Christianity) and told him: “Gog and Magog are at work in the Middle East…. The biblical prophecies are being fulfilled…. This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people’s enemies before a New Age begins.”

This bizarre episode occurred while the White House was assembling its “coalition of the willing” to unleash the Iraq invasion. Chirac says he was boggled by Bush’s call and “wondered how someone could be so superficial and fanatical in their beliefs.”

Again, if true, I think it speaks for itself.

And given Bush’s insistence on saying he was chosen by God, etc., we have every reason to believe that something like this is not only plausible, but also highly likely.

Ugh.

As you can see below, the title of this post was an actual caption on Fox News.

So their argument is basically, “Because Universal Health Care brings about more diversity, it’s more likely to attract terrorists because Muslims will fit in and not be noticed. Best to have private practices where white, Christian doctors make up the majority. That way they’ll spot the Muslims who are likely to be reading jihadist web pages at work.”

Fox News: Breeding Ground For Morons?

This is an incredibly significant step because it paves the way for an actual revolution.

From Times Online:

Iran’s biggest group of clerics has declared President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s re-election to be illegitimate and condemned the subsequent crackdown.

The statement by the Association of Researchers and Teachers of Qom is an act of defiance against the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has made clear he will tolerate no further challenges to Mr Ahmadinejad’s “victory” over Mir Hossein Mousavi.

“It’s a clerical mutiny,” said one Iranian analyst. “This is the first time ever you have all these big clerics openly challenging the leader’s decision.” Another, in Tehran, said: “We are seeing the birth of a new political front.”

This has a few practical effects.

1. It puts the Supreme Leader in a nearly indefensible positions and calls into question his authority.
2. These clerics can now claim the moral high ground and possibly unseat the Supreme Leader
3. It’s unlikely that Mousavi will be arrested at this point, even though Khamenei has called for it.

Also, let’s not forget that even though the protests were quashed last week, folks will be coming out in about 20 days to mourn the deaths of the protesters who died during the first round. And this could lead to more deaths, which will lead to more protests, etc. And that’s how the revolution in 1979 happened, so there’s a possibility it could happen again.

More as it develops…

So says a commenter who posted this a couple of hours ago…

“We are from god and we will return to him”

Great people of Iran

It is with extreme sadness that I have learnt of the massacre of the people who had gathered peacefully to defend their rights. I am deeply concerned about these events, and hereby declare Wednesday, Thursday and Friday as national mourning days. I support the people’s pacific acts in order to defend their rights in respect of our republic, and forbid any act which can harm it.

All my brothers and sisters are bound to help the nation in this fight, and I declare any resistance, specially any violence against the people, against the principles of Islam and “Haram”.

The blogger says that he found the letter on Moussavi’s Facebook page, but I can’t find it there. Obviously the news if flying fast and furious right now, so take this with a grain of salt until it’s confirmed. However, the blogger did translate the previous letter from Montazeri, so that lend some additional credibility to the post.

Still, if this is true, it’s a pretty significant step forward from merely condemning the violence and the validity of the election. Because, this sounds like the first whispers of real revolution, especially since he’s saying this is against Islam.

“Whatever titles we give these murderers, both deserve our attention. Violence like that is no way to solve a political dispute nor a religious one. And the fanatics on all sides do great disservice when they confuse dissention with rage and death.”
- Sarah Palin on the similarities between the Tiller and Long shootings

Credit where credit is due. Palin calls this one right.

Thoughts?

Now, why would anybody ever take this the wrong way?

Transcript:

Terry: The point that must be emphasized over, and over, and over again: pro-life leaders and the pro-life movement are not responsible for George Tiller’s death. George Tiller was a mass-murder and, horrifically, he reaped what he sowed.

Q: So who is responsible …

Terry: The man who shot him is responsible …

Q: … because that makes it sound like you were saying that he [Tiller] is responsible.

Terry: The man who shot him is responsible.

Q: What did you mean by “he reaped what he sowed”?

Terry: He was a mass-murder. He sowed death. And then he reaped death in a horrifying way.

And after this clip makes the rounds, maybe Randall Terry and the group he started will reap a lot of really bad press and lose any shred of credibility.

Fingers crossed.

Anybody who reads this blog knows where I fall on the gay marriage issue, but the Supreme Court of California wasn’t reallly deciding the validity of gay marriage itself, so the ruling was actually dead on in my opinion.

This article from Bloomberg points out why…

The court legalized gay marriage a year ago before California voters overruled it in November. Fifty-two percent of them approved the ban, amending the state constitution to recognize only marriages between a man and a woman. The court ruled 6 to 1 today in favor of upholding Proposition 8, saying it was ruling only on the ability of voters to pass a ballot measure rather than whether gay marriage should be legal.

“The principal issue before us concerns the scope of the right of the people, under the provisions of the California Constitution, to change or alter the state constitution itself through the initiative process,” the court wrote, “not to determine whether the provision at issue is wise or sound.”

Yes, it’s the law and it’s specific. And if they ruled against that provision, it would harm the citizens’ rights to amend the Constitution. That’s not a precedent the courts want to set just to prove a point.

But here’s the most important part of this entire argument…all the marriages that happened before the ban are legal!!!

The court ruled unanimously that the 18,000 same-sex marriages performed before the ban remain valid. The November ban sparked protests across California and led activists to create Web sites that identified individuals who donated money to support the measure and boycott donors’ business. The ballot measure overrode the court’s May 15, 2008, ruling that laws barring same-sex marriages were unconstitutional.

So to all of you gay marriage advocates, I know this seems like a loss today but it’s not.

Actually, this is a VERY big win as it signals continuous positive movement. Because you know there will be another ballot initiative to overturn Prop 8 at some point and it’ll pass and California will join the growing number of states where marriage is equal for all. But you have to get out there and fight for it if you want it to happen.

More as it develops…

It appears as if evangelical Christians inside the military could be urging troops to give out bibles in Afghanistan…which is strictly forbidden by both the military’s code of conduct and Afghan law.

Here’s the report…

Now, the military denies that the bibles were ever distributed, but there’s no way to really prove if they were or weren’t. But what this brings up is the idea that the religiosity of some in the military is starting to get in the way. Because the faithful seem to have way too much influence right now since blatant prosteletyzing has been happening much too often right out in the open.

For instance, take the Mikey Weinstein situation at the Air Force Academy…

In recent years, accusations of evangelical line-crossing have piled up. In 2005, Fisher DeBerry, then the Air Force Academy’s football coach, was ordered to remove a “Team Jesus Christ” banner from the locker room. Senior officers who were filmed in uniform at the Pentagon for a Christian promotional video were reprimanded. Then in February, again at the academy, three professed exterrorists and reformed Christians were accused of putting a “Jesus saves”
message in a presentation to cadets. Richardson, quoted three years ago in The New York Times as saying chaplains “reserve the right to evangelize the unchurched,” was cited in a lawsuit against the Air Force that claimed there was widespread proselytizing at the academy.

The suit was brought by Mikey Weinstein, a former Air Force attorney and longtime critic of alleged coercive Christianity within the military. (As a result of the suit, a private chaplain association’s code of ethics retaining the “right to evangelize those who are not affiliated” is no longer passed out at Air Force Chaplain’s School.)

And let’s not forget the seriously mixed messages our former POTUS sent…

Mr Bush revealed the extent of his religious fervour when he met a Palestinian delegation during the Israeli-Palestinian summit at the Egpytian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, four months after the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.

One of the delegates, Nabil Shaath, who was Palestinian foreign minister at the time, said: “President Bush said to all of us: ‘I am driven with a mission from God’. God would tell me, ‘George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan’. And I did. And then God would tell me ‘George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq’. And I did.”

Mr Bush went on: “And now, again, I feel God’s words coming to me, ‘Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East’. And, by God, I’m gonna do it.”

Listen, I have nothing against religion in general or members of the military practicing their faith responsibly. That’s their business.

But strict lines between religion and military must be maintained so our armed forces are not seen as Christian forces. And if that means harsh punishments for those who violate these rules, so be it. Because we can’t allow a cadre of the faithful to undermine our credibility.

What do you think?

“I’ve had some friends that are actually homosexual. And, I mean, they know where I stand, and they know that I wouldn’t have them anywhere near my children. But at the same time, they’re people, and they’re going to do their thing.”
- Joe Wurzelbacher sharing his views on friendship

Now, does anybody here think that Joe actually has gay friends? No, me neither.

But wait, there’s more!

Because in an interview with Christianity Today, he also let slip yet another misguided, bigoted pearl…

In the last month, same-sex marriage has become legal in Iowa and Vermont. What do you think about same-sex marriage at a state level?

At a state level, it’s up to them. I don’t want it to be a federal thing. I personally still think it’s wrong. People don’t understand the dictionary—it’s called queer. Queer means strange and unusual. It’s not like a slur, like you would call a white person a honky or something like that. You know, God is pretty explicit in what we’re supposed to do—what man and woman are for. Now, at the same time, we’re supposed to love everybody and accept people, and preach against the sins.

And this is a guy who has a book deal, is being paid to speak and covered the situation in Gaza for Pajamas Media.

Good times.

Take a look at the following at see how many of these you agree with.

From ABC:

Support for gay marriage, legalizing illegal immigrants and decriminalizing marijuana all are at new highs. Three-quarters of Americans favor federal regulation of greenhouse gases. Two-thirds support establishing relations with Cuba.

But hold tight.

If some views that may be perceived as liberal are ascendant, so are some conservative ones: Opposition to gun control is also at a new high in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll. There’s continued broad support for tighter border controls. And contrary to President Obama, half of Americans wouldn’t flatly rule out torturing terrorism suspects.

I agree with every single one of those views except ruling out torture. I don’t think that should be in our playbook, and I’m sure the readers of this blog know exactly why so I won’t get into it.

But everything else I’m on board with. And, yes, I oppose gun control and I want tighter border security.

The first because it’s not our guns that are making us less safe, it’s our drug laws and prison systems that breed criminality. And look at any study where you have conceal and carry. Crime goes down. Sorry folks, but when more people have guns, society gets more polite.

Turning to illegal immigration, in this new, post 9/11 world, it only makes sense to have much tighter border control. And if we want to begin legalizing illegal immigrants, we’re going to have to lock the border up tight. There’s no other way. You can’t have one without the other, and anybody who tells you otherwise is selling you snake oil.

What this tells me is that we’re definitely a moderate nation, and probably leaning a little bit more towards being center left. And after 30 years of being center right, that’s to be expected.

So, how do you compare?

I’m telling you, it’s going to happen one way or another, and now it seems to be tipping away from civil unions and towards full marriage rights.

In fact, a new NYTimes/CBS poll reveals that…

• In March, 35% thought same sex couples should have no legal recognition. That numbers has dropped 7% since then.
• 69% of liberals support gay marriage, while only 28% of conservatives support it. But when you add that 28% with the 28% who favor civil unions, well, 56% of conservatives are for some sort of recognition.
• While only 31% of those over 40 support gay marriage, 57% of those under 40 support it. And that’s really all you need to know to realize this will happen sooner or later.

But hey, Republicans should keep fighting it and see if that’ll work.

OR…they could realize that this issue is over and move on.

More as it develops…

Picked this up from Doug’s site and it’s worth watching the whole thing.

And so we have the inherent problem with every single argument coming out of the religious right wing opposing gay marriage…none of them can be defended by anything other than distorted facts or personal opinions. It was the same with the anti-miscegenation laws back in the 60s.

By the way, isn’t it insane to think that we actually had laws against interracial marriage less than 50 years ago?

In any event, I know I sound like a broken record, but it’s only a matter of time before gay marriage is legal across the country. It might take another decade for it to be legal everywhere, but it’ll happen nonetheless.

A speech from the Senate Majority Leader in Iowa sums it up pretty succinctly…

This is why I’m telling folks that the marriage between the social conservatives and the fiscal conservatives is done. Because this next generation of voters favors progressive social policy in bigger numbers than any other generation in history. And fiscal conservatives ignore this at their own peril.