Dark Christianity
.::: .::..:.::.:.
Back Viewing 0 - 20  
dogemperor [userpic]
Avast, Matey!: ‘Faith-Based’ Pirates Sail Away With Coast Guard Cutters

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY [info]navytron89)



The “faith-based” initiative is closely tied to the Bush administration, which has been pushing for government-funded social services provided by religious groups since 2001.

But members of Congress have long sought to slip a little taxpayer largess to their favorite religious groups. Consider, for example, the curious case of Canvasback Missions in Benicia, Calif.

And this is one of the reasons why I believe in eliminating earmark funding, let the churchs' get their own funds from their congregation and not take from the taxpayers, especially if they are a 503 non-taxable enitity.  

I think maybe Congress should repeal the tax codes on all churchs like the EU did and lets see how much funds are really slipping out of the coffers and into the pockets of not only the clergy but the politicians as well.

This group should be prosiciuted or at least fined for breaking the law and just because its a faith group it shouldn't get special treatment.

location: Norfolk,VA
Current Mood: annoyed
dogemperor [userpic]
110th Congress


A bill to provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception

Sometimes I wonder if the Dominionists are all that's hard at work subverting this country...

Current Mood: aggravated
dogemperor [userpic]
Quotes on the RR


David Kuo (the deputy director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives from 2001 to 2003, and the author of “Tempting Faith”) has an op-ed in today's New York Times. He quotes John W. Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute:

Modern Christianity, having lost sight of Christ’s teachings, has been co-opted by legalism, materialism and politics. Simply put, it has lost its spirituality. [...] Whereas Christianity was once synonymous with charity, compassion and love for one’s neighbor, today it is more often equated with partisan politics, anti-homosexual rhetoric and affluent mega-churches.

Evangelicals are beginning to see the effect of their political involvement on those with whom they hope to share Jesus’ eternal message: non-evangelicals. Tellingly, Beliefnet’s poll showed that nearly 60 percent of non-evangelicals have a more negative view of Jesus because of Christian political involvement; almost 40 percent believe that George W. Bush’s faith has had a negative impact on his presidency.

One can but hope...Dominionism is as much a corruption of evangelical Christianity as "abstinence-only" sex ed and clinic bombers.

Current Mood: cheerful
dogemperor [userpic]
Interesting debate

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY [info]inkedgeekfreak)

Looks like the GOP is gearing up to turn out more fear based votes for the midterm election.

second source

Explains a showdown between Specter and Fiengold over the decision to send an anti-gay marriage amendment to the floor.

location: Classroom
Current Mood: cranky
dogemperor [userpic]
It's beginning


The nullification of the Constitution, that is.


I don't even know how to begin.

dogemperor [userpic]
These people frighten me

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY [info]wyldraven)

Justice House of Prayer (JHOP)

Excerpts direct from the JHOP site )

ABC Nightline Report on JHOP

dogemperor [userpic]
"the ACLU wants to defend the rights of the terrorists"

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY [info]deridetenebras)

The president of a Christian activist organization is among a growing number of citizens who are saying it is about time for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to stop trying to put criminals' rights above the rights of American citizens.

Read more... )


dogemperor [userpic]
ACTION ALERT- Headstart bill allows religious discrimination


The House has passed H.R 2123, the "School Readiness Act of 2005." Amendment #574 (Boehner) allows "faith based" groups to discriminate in hiring and accepting volunteers for Headstart programs:

More information on the bill here.

Text of amendment:

(a)(1) The Secretary shall not provide financial assistance for any program, project, or activity under this subchapter unless the grant or contract with respect thereto specifically provides that no person with responsibilities in the operation thereof will discriminate with respect to any such program, project, or activity because of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, political affiliation, or beliefs.
(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a recipient of financial assistance under this subchapter that is a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society, with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association, educational institution, or society of its activities. Such recipients shall comply with the other requirements contained in this subsection.

The act is now in committee. Write your senators and tell them to oppose Amendment #547 to the School Readiness act.

List of senators:


Handwritten/typed letters have more impact than e-mails.

dogemperor [userpic]
Frist Did WHAT?

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY [info]britzkrieg)

Guuuuyyyys...? What's going on here? Did I wake up in the right universe?

Anyone want to speculate on the story behind the story? Is this just a stunt to increase Frist's viability as a Presidential candidate?


Frist backs increased federal stem cell funding

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist on Friday threw his support behind House-passed legislation to expand federal financing for human embryonic stem cell research, breaking with President Bush and religious conservatives in a move that could impact his prospects for seeking the White House in 2008.

"It's not just a matter of faith, it's a matter of science," Frist, R-Tennessee, said on the floor of the Senate.

Frist's announcement immediately dented his support among Christian conservatives... The Christian Defense Coalition lambasted Frist's change of position.

"Sen. Frist should not expect support and endorsement from the pro-life community if he votes for embryonic research funding," it said.

"Senator Frist cannot have it both ways. He cannot be pro-life and pro-embryonic stem cell funding," said Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, director of the group. "Nor can he turn around and expect widespread endorsement from the pro-life community if he should decide to run for president in 2008."

...It also could impact Frist's own political future. A likely presidential candidate in 2008, Frist has been courting religious conservatives who helped make Bush a twice-elected president and generally consider embryonic stem cell research a moral equivalent to abortion. But the announcement, coming just a month after Frist said he did not support expanded financing "at this juncture," could help him with centrist voters...

dogemperor [userpic]
Top this for arrogance!


A Colorado congressman threatens Islamic holy sites:

DENVER (AP) -- A Colorado congressman told a radio show host that the U.S. could "take out" Islamic holy sites if Muslim fundamentalist terrorists attacked the country with nuclear weapons.Read more... )

dogemperor [userpic]
FRC Marshals Its Forces Against Stem Cell Research

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY [info]britzkrieg)

Family Research Council (FRC) Action Item:

Tell your Senators to Oppose Funding Embryonic Stem Cell Research
July 14, 2005

In the next week or two, the Senate will probably vote on a House passed bill, sponsored by Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE), H.R. 810, that will federally fund research that requires the destruction of human embryos. H.R. 810 will fund research on human embryos that supposedly are "leftover" from in vitro fertilization. Instead of promoting the adoption of these human embryos, this bill would require their death.

President Bush is the first president to federally fund human embryonic stem cell research. He determined that such research could be funded so long as the cells had been obtained from embryos on or prior to August 9, 2001. Since then, the government has funded research on over 22 stem cell lines. However, the President's policy does not encourage the further destruction of human embryos.

Just as abortion is currently legal, destroying human embryos is completely legal. The debate is about taxpayer support. Though legal we don't federally fund abortion. Likewise, we should not force US taxpayers to fund research that requires the killing of human embryos. However, H.R. 810 would overturn the Bush policy and create a direct incentive to create and kill human embryos for research with your money.

Contact your Senators and let them know that you strongly oppose H.R. 810 (and its Senate version, S. 471).


dogemperor [userpic]
Theocrat of the Week


From Frederick Clarkson's blog:

Periodically, we here at FrederickClarkson.com are compelled to recognize an individual in American politics or government whose efforts on behalf of theocracy are, well, extraordinary. This week we recognize the efforts of U.S. Rep. John Hoesttler (R-IN) who has pushed through legislation in the House that would deny funding to enforce the ruling of a federal court which declared that a display of a monument to Ten Commandments in a court house in his district was unconstitutional. He also declared on the House floor, that "Democrats cannot help denigrating and demonizing Christians." Finally, in a House committee meeting, he referred to "the mythical wall [of] separation between church and state that's been erected by the courts." (Although he did not say this last item this week, our judges have ruled that it counts since the remark came to our attention this week.)

Details at his blog.

dogemperor [userpic]
Repeal 22nd Amendment?

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY [info]moirawolf)

A friend has linked me to this page:

House proposes to Repeal the 22nd Amendment, thus ending Term Limits

While not on the official website of the House of Representatives it does appear to be some sort of govermental website, aligned with the Library of Congress.

Is this a Hoax? Or is someone in Washington actually thinking about ending Presidential Term Limits? Could this country stand even *more* of George Bush? What would that mean in terms of the Christian agenda?

We're all just waiting for his 2nd term in office to end, so that someone new, anyone new will get into the office (and we can always hope for a Democrat). Speculation?

Personally, if this is true, it's yet one more reason to write your congressman/woman, Representative and protest.

Either that or move to another country.

crossposted to my personal LJ

dogemperor [userpic]
Congress Assaults the Courts, Again


From the NYT Op-ed pages:The theocrats continue to chip away at the courts...

Congress Assaults the Courts, Again
June 18, 2005

The House of Representatives took a little- noticed but dangerous swipe at the power of the courts this week. It passed an amendment to a budget bill that would bar money from being spent to enforce a federal court ruling regarding the Ten Commandments. The vote threatens the judiciary's long-acknowledged position as the final arbiter of the Constitution. It is important that this amendment be removed before the bill becomes law.

During consideration of an appropriations bill for the Departments of State, Justice and Commerce, Representative John Hostettler, Republican of Indiana, introduced an amendment to prohibit any funds from being used to enforce Russelburg v. Gibson County. In that case, a federal court ruled that a courthouse Ten Commandments display violated the First Amendment and had to be removed. Mr. Hostettler declared that the ruling was unconstitutional, and inconsistent with "the Christian heritage of the United States."[emphasis mine- ed]Read more... )

dogemperor [userpic]
An email to Frist

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY [info]heartlikeawheel)

Thank you Sunfell, for the welcome. As you asked, here is a repost of my email to Frist, sent a few days ago. I'm sure it went right in the trashcan, with all the other "dissidents":

Senator Frist:

The filibuster was A-OK when Republicans wanted to use it time and again to block Clinton's appointments. But now that it is the last tool available to Democrats for blocking the appointment of Christian Reconstructionist judges to the Supreme Court, i.e., those who would impose their religious views on all Americans by force of the Bench, you and your constituents say the filibuster is "unconstitutional" and seek to ban it.

I'd like to inform you of something. There is no government on this planet who could force me to conform to the "moral ethic" of ANY religion. I will decide what is moral for me, you will not. The religious fanatics who re-elected the President and gave the Republicans the majority in Congress are dangerous people on a level with Osama Bin Laden...same premise, different religion. And you and your kind embrace them to your bosom.

The day that government begins enforcing laws dictating how people should and should not live their personal lives is the day I abandon this country for a DEMOCRACY. This one, sadly, has more fascist elements than democratic these days. But I suppose today's Republicans like it that way. Lincoln, the founder of your party, is spinning in his grave.

The Founding Fathers will weep. You think they'd like a theocracy, I'm sure, with a judiciary interpreting law based solely on Mosaic Law. After all, isn't that what the Constitutional Restoration Act is all about? Indeed it is. No law shall be higher in the land than God's law, that is the gist of it, hidden behind such deceitful, patriotic language. What the Founding Fathers really envisioned was that the American people are entitled to be free FROM religion, as well as free to practice ANY religion of their choice.

You and your kind should be ashamed. But I'll wager you're not.

dogemperor [userpic]
Arkansas Senator dislikes Christian tactics


Senator Mark Pryor talks about the misuse of Evangelicals in the Senate filibuster debate.

Real Audio needed.

dogemperor [userpic]
Frist to use religious stage for judicial issue


This New York Times article talks about the upcoming battle between the Dominionist owned Republicans and the "persecuting" Democrats over religion and judges:

As the Senate heads toward a showdown over the rules governing judicial confirmations, Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, has agreed to join a handful of prominent Christian conservatives in a telecast portraying Democrats as "against people of faith" for blocking President Bush's nominees.

Fliers for the telecast, organized by the Family Research Council and scheduled to originate at a Kentucky megachurch the evening of April 24, call the day "Justice Sunday" and depict a young man holding a Bible in one hand and a gavel in the other. The flier does not name participants, but under the heading "the filibuster against people of faith," it reads: "The filibuster was once abused to protect racial bias, and it is now being used against people of faith."

Organizers say they hope to reach more than a million people by distributing the telecast to churches around the country, over the Internet and over Christian television and radio networks and stations.

Dr. Frist's spokesman said the senator's speech in the telecast would reflect his previous remarks on judicial appointments. In the past he has consistently balanced a determination "not to yield" on the president's nominees with appeals to the Democrats for compromise. He has distanced himself from the statements of others like the House majority leader, Tom DeLay, who have attacked the courts, saying they are too liberal, "run amok" or are hostile to Christianity.

The telecast, however, will put Dr. Frist in a very different context. Asked about Dr. Frist's participation in an event describing the filibuster "as against people of faith," his spokesman, Bob Stevenson, did not answer the question directly.

"Senator Frist is doing everything he can to ensure judicial nominees are treated fairly and that every senator has the opportunity to give the president their advice and consent through an up or down vote," Mr. Stevenson said, adding, "He has spoken to groups all across the nation to press that point, and as long as a minority of Democrats continue to block a vote, he will continue to do so."

Some of the nation's most influential evangelical Protestants are participating in the teleconference in Louisville, including Dr. James C. Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family; Chuck Colson, the born-again Watergate figure and founder of Prison Fellowship Ministries; and Dr. Al Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

The event is taking place as Democrats and Republicans alike are escalating their public relations campaigns in anticipation of an imminent confrontation. The Democratic minority has blocked confirmation of 10 of President Bush's judicial nominees by preventing Republicans from gaining the 60 votes needed to close debate, using the filibuster tactic often used by political minorities and most notoriously employed by opponents of civil rights.

"Filibuster against people of faith". This is a prime example of classic Dominionist tactics at work: pretend to be persecuted and play the 'victim' card to the hilt, and make anyone who questions their bullying tactics look like some oppressor or worse. People like this love to play the martyr card, and anyone who questions them is seen as an attacker, who must be defamed and destroyed. Unfortunately, the 'lay' people who do not know how the Dominionists work take their cries of "victim" at face value, worsening the situtation. Keep a close eye on this- it will get worse.

dogemperor [userpic]
Another sharp look at the "Constitution Restoration Act"


ZNet's coverage of this bill in Congress is headlined with "Say Hello To Taliban America And Goodbye To Godless Judges, Courts And Law". Sadly, this is true. And no one in the cowed, gutless and biased mainstream media is saying anything about it. No one.

This stunning bill and the movement behind it deserve immediate crash study on at least 3 different fronts.

1. Its hostile divorce of American jurisprudence from our hard-won secular history and international norms. To again quote the Conservative Caucus: "This important bill will restrict the jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court and all lower federal courts to that permitted by the U.S. Constitution, including on the subject of the acknowledgement of God (as in the Roy Moore 10 Commandments issue); and it also restricts federal courts from recognizing the laws of foreign countries and international law [e.g., against torture, global warming, unjust wars, etc. - ed.] as the supreme law of our land."

Re the last point, envision some doddering judges who still revere our Declaration of Independence's "decent respect to the opinions of mankind," and suppose they invoke in their rulings some international precepts from the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women or, God forbid, the Geneva Conventions. Well, under the CRA that would all be clearly illegal and, thank God, that's the last we'd ever hear from them.

2. The political implications of replacing "we the people" with a Christian deity as the "sovereign source" of all our laws.

Imagine hyper-zealous officers or "entities" of the Federal, State, or local government (like a governor, legislature or school board) that mandate Christian prayers, rituals and/or statuary in public buildings under their control. Were this to happen, some local Jews, Muslims and/or Buddhists might be moved to hire a lawyer and legally object. But if the CRA passes, their objection would be beyond any court's jurisdiction and that's the last we'd ever hear of that. It in fact demands "impeachment, conviction, and removal of judges" who dare to even hear a case that challenges its "Last Days" morphing of Christian church and state. (Just how our new Sovereign Source of Government's advocacy of public executions for adultery, gay-ness, contraception and blasphemy will fit into our current corrections system still remains to be seen.)

3 The incessant mainstream media blackout on the bill's existence and import.

The potential impact of the Constitution Restoration Act on American life, law and politics is so radical and vast that you would expect a boiling national debate. Yet just as with the crimes and questions of 9/11, everyone in the media seems terrifically busy looking the other way. If you want yet another dramatic metric of US journalistic dysfunction, try Googling "Constitution Restoration Act" in their News category and see what you get. Today, three weeks after the bill was filed, I find a grand total of three throwaway mentions in Alabama's Shelby County Reporter, the Decatur Daily, and the Massachusetts Daily Collegian. ("Terry Schiavo" in contrast will net you over a thousand news hits, and "Michael Jackson" just passed 36,000 with a bullet.)

The Dominionist TheoCons are already advocating killing judges who don't agree with their idea of 'morality'. No one is screaming about this, either. Why? Have we been prayed down by them into some sort of mindless quivering putty for them to do this? Why aren't these people in cuffs and doing the perp walk? Isn't anyone worried that we're about to lose our country to these people? And that they want to destroy 230 years of pretty good democracy and replace it with a theocratic government... with nukes? Again, here's ZNet's take on that:

In the meantime, however, before the CRA takes force and reduces legal education to a Bible study course, what say we undertake a little Constitutional defense of our own? To get up to speed on the current Christian right agenda, Moyers' "Welcome to Doomsday", Katherine Yurica's "The Despoiling of America" and John "The 9/11 Truth Candidate" Buchanan's "Fixing America" are excellent places to start.

None of these analyses offer a silver bullet or paint a pretty picture, but as students of 9/11 now know, spreading the courage to face the truth is really the only hope we've got.

dogemperor [userpic]
Open season on the judiciary


[info]twistedchick talks about the "open season on judges" declared by the Dominionist ruled Republicans. They've reintroduced a bill that

Amends the Federal judicial code to prohibit the U.S. Supreme Court and the Federal district courts from exercising jurisdiction over any matter in which relief is sought against an entity of Federal, State, or local government or an officer or agent of such government concerning that entity's, officer's, or agent's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.

Prohibits a court of the United States from relying upon any law, policy, or other action of a foreign state or international organization in interpreting and applying the Constitution, other than English constitutional and common law up to the time of adoption of the U.S. Constitution.

Provides that any Federal court decision relating to an issue removed from Federal jurisdiction by this Act is not binding precedent on State courts.

Provides that any Supreme Court justice or Federal court judge who exceeds the jurisdictional limitations of this Act shall be deemed to have committed an offense for which the justice or judge may be removed, and to have violated the standard of good behavior required of Article III judges by the Constitution.

They tried this (and failed) in 2003. They're going to keep at it until it passes, or they get impeached.

[info]twistedchick says, "No way can this be called conservative -- it is a radical reworking of the law and the power of the judiciary. It is punitive to judges who interpret the law in the traditional manner. It abridges case law and constitutional law occurring since the Constitution was adopted in 1787. It expressly unites church and state, and makes religion the source of law and justice -- which opens up the possibility of changing any law that is not aligned with the religious beliefs of whoever is in power."

This must be fought. It will kill the Constitution as we know it, and turn the courts into religious courts, dispensing Biblical justice. For non-Christians, 'heretics', women, and especially homosexuals, this means almost certain death, if the extreme Dominionists have their way.

Here's another look at this "Constitution Restoration Act". I find it ironic the 'newspeak' involved in naming this bill- it's going to destroy the Constitution, not 'restore' it. Sort of like 'Healthy Forests' and "Clear Skies"...

dogemperor [userpic]


The 'Constitution Restoration' Act (filed one month and a day ago).

`Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an entity of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer or agent of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official or personal capacity), concerning that entity's, officer's, or agent's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.'. [emphasis mine]

Back Viewing 0 - 20