Again, who’s responsible?

As I asked in my post below several days ago, I will ask again.  Five Afghan children were killed yesterday by NATO forces in a botched artillery strike.  Five people created in the image of God, people sustained actively by God.  People who, if we have an consistent pro-life ethic, should be bitterly mourned.  Who will be prosecuted for their deaths?  Where will their parents turn for justice?  

Who is responsible?

First impressions aren’t always the most accurate…

Cedric Benson The Great Debaters

Have you heard about Cedric Benson’s arrest on Saturday?  From the first reports I heard on ESPN Radio the other day, Cedric was “pulled over” while boating on Lake Travis in Austin, TX for a “safety check” where the police were suspicious enough of his sobriety that they put him on their boat for a test, where Benson became disorderly and violently resisted arrest enough that pepper spray was administered and he had to be dragged to his car.

My first impression? “Typical Cedric Benson. Displays no work ethic on the field to get better. Thinks he’s entitled to everything because he was a first-round draft pick and is a pro athlete. Plus, he’s probably a thug, if his actions around the police reveal anything.”

That was my first reaction. Casting stereotypes. And stereotypes sometimes work, I guess. However, my viewing of the excellent, excellent movie The Great Debaters earlier this year told me a little something about racism that I’m much more sensitized to, especially when it comes to police and minorities. In the setting of The Great Debaters (1930s Texas), it was still kosher in the wider society to treat blacks like subhuman-beings; scene after scene in the movie displayed that in shocking detail. Why this is relevant today is the simple truth that racism, while it may not be quite as immediately obvious in our society today (it’s less kosher on a society-wide level), is still deeply embedded; just harder to see. And it’s no coincidence that the most deeply-South sections of American society typically have the most embedded racism. It is this simple understanding that makes this Cedric Benson story more complex than at first blush. Especially when the experience of his friend and Benson’s mother (two passengers on the boat) is told. The quotes all come from this story.

A female passenger on Cedric Benson’s boat Saturday night in Austin, Texas, was concerned enough about his safety after police took him into custody to phone her parents and urge them to call 911, the Tribune has learned.

‘I called my dad and told him, ‘Call 911, my black friend is getting beaten up by police on Lake Travis,’ ” said Elizabeth Cartwright, 22, a friend of Benson’s from the University of Texas. “It’s more what I heard than what I saw. I have never heard or seen Cedric that scared.’

And this little tidbit matters too.

Cartwright, an English major at the University of Texas who is to graduate later this month, estimated she and her fiance had been boating with Benson six times this spring and each time a Lower Colorado River Authority boat pulled them over for a safety check.

Now, call me oversensitive, but when the three elements of the story (Texas police, a black man, and six “safety checks” in six boating expeditions) come together, I start to get a little suspicious, thanks to listening to experiences of my black brothers and sisters. The affidavit filed by the Lower Colorado River Authority described Benson as cocky, combative, and smelling of alcohol. Multiple witnesses of the event describe things differently (there were 15 other folks on the boat). According to Benson, police pepper-sprayed him in the eyes without provocation and dragged him along the ground to the point he cried out for his mother, Jackie.

Cartwright commented again,

The arrival of LCRA police perturbed Benson because of the frequency of the checks on his 30-foot boat, Cartwright said. When Benson’s boat passed the safety inspection, Cartwright said she and her fiance were surprised the officer then required a sobriety test for Benson. “We were all like, ‘Why?’ ” she said.

After an officer led Benson to the LCRA boat for the test, the second officer left behind on Benson’s boat assured a nervous Jackie Benson that her son would be fine, Cartwright recalled.

A few minutes later, Cartwright said she heard Benson begin to scream after the officer pepper-sprayed him in the eye. By the time Benson was in handcuffs, he was screaming, “Please stop, Mom, make them please stop.” Cartwright disputed that Benson was resisting arrest.

And finally,

Benson claimed police kicked his feet out from under him, causing him to fall awkwardly. When Benson got up, Cartwright remembers him sitting in a squad car surrounded by six officers.

“In the weakest voice, Cedric said to me and my fiance, ‘Help me get out of here,’ ” Cartwright said. “He was so scared.”

The reason this story sticks out to me is the radical difference in accounts between the police and witnesses. Fifty years ago, the witnesses may have been muzzled (because of some being black) and the police report would have been the only one given to the press, which would have led to more whites saying, “Typical black man (insert racial epithet here).” I still have the extended scene from The Great Debaters burned into my memory of Denzel Washington being arrested under pretenses of disorderly conduct and “communism” for having the audacity to organize the poor white and black sharecroppers to act together. The way the police handled that situation, the brutal disregard for his humanity, and the racism that bled through everything disturbed me.

I’m not saying this situation was racially charged, but I am suggesting it as a possibility. Not sayin’, just sayin’.

That’s my boy!

jimmy carter

I don’t know if you had caught this developing story today or not, but Jimmy Carter (a man I look up to very very much) is working hard for progress in the Palestinian/Israeli peace process.  Today, he met with senior Hamas officials in Cairo in the hopes that some common bond could be built.  What made me say, “Attaboy Jimmy!” was the first couple lines from the article,

Former President Carter met with senior Hamas officials in the Egyptian capital today, rankling the Israeli and US governments, which say it runs counter to their policies of not negotiating with terrorists.

Later in the article, the same thing stuck out to me.

During his stop in Israel, most officials- including Prime Minister Ehud Olmert- refused to meet with Carter, angry over his insistence that Israel should talk to Hamas, which is considered a terrorist organization by Israel, the United States, and the European Union.

I hope you don’t misinterpret my “Attaboy!” for a blank check endorsement of Hamas as a legitimate governing authority, because that’s not my intent at all. In fact, Hamas has done a tremendous amount of violence and evil on its part over the years that have burned bridges with Israeli people and deeply set back the Israel/Palestine peace process.

My attaboy really has two main dimensions;
1) Jimmy Carter’s got some serious stones to do what he’s doing now

Bigger ones than Ehud Olmert, Khalid Meshaal, or George Bush, at least. Either these “leaders” are so completely blinded to the complex issues that surround seeking peace in this area or are continuing to willfully play off others’ fears, because there’s been plenty of black/white simplistic answers coming from these parties.Jimmy’s in pursuit of solutions and healing, and he’s willing to ask hard questions and meet with the unmeetable because he knows peoples’ lives (both Palestinian and Israeli) hang in the balance. And peoples’ lives are always, ALWAYS more important than the wounded pride and ego of choosing to embrace those you have hated so long you almost don’t remember why.

2) Jimmy Carter’s smart enough to know “terrorist” is just a label that all kinds of organizations throw around, usually to demonize the opposing party in the hopes that your folks will come off smelling like roses, all righteous and stuff. Terrorism is in the eyes of the beholder.

I wrote a few posts awhile back highlighting this fact.

1) One post focused on the reports early in March of a Tomahawk cruise missile attack on an al-Qaeda operative in Somalia.

The Pentagon confirmed that the U.S. military struck a target against a known al-Qaeda terrorist, and I’m sure this was the point at which your average story-reader (especially American) stopped reading. But buried at the bottom of the article, we’re told that the strike destroyed two houses, killed three women, three children, and wounded another twenty people. Now in the bigger scheme of things (beyond the Pentagon thinking they rode in on their white horse, accomplished justice, and rode back out again), how much do you think that missile strike affected that town of Dhoobley? The families of the killed? The injured? The memories that will remain for generations in that small town? The (justified) hatred that Tomahawk will inspire in them? Who comes off as a terrorist organization for the people in Dhoobley? I’ll let you handle that one yourself.

2) Another post focused on a story that emerged April 1 also related to the American government. The story, reporting on a Justice Department memo to Bush, stated

The president’s wartime power as commander in chief would not be limited by the U.N. treaties against torture. Legal counsel John Yoo wrote, “Our previous opinions make clear that customary international law is not federal law and that the president is free to override it at his discretion.”

What would be the definition of a terrorist organization? Maybe one that openly flaunts international law and does what it decides is right, with the good of all over-ridden by their own interests? The U.S. fits the description in this case.

3) And the third post had to do with the very Israeli/Palestinian relationship Carter is addressing right now.

It seems Hamas got a sweet whiff of what might bring lasting positive change in the shattered relationship by choosing not to suicide bomb a marketplace, but instead mobilize the people of Palestine in non-violent protest against the unjust security wall Israel has been building. Israel caught a whiff of this plan, and here was their response;

The army intends to prevent the marchers from advancing on the fence when they are still inside the Strip, using various means for crowd dispersal according to a ring system: The closer the marchers get to the fence, the harsher the response.The army plans to fire at open areas near the demonstrators with artillery that the Artillery Corps has been moving to the area over the past couple of days. If the marchers continue and cross into the next ring, they will face tear gas. If they persist, snipers could be ordered to aim for the marchers’ legs as they approach the fence.

It’s not an un-related point that Israel has been building the security walls inside the borders of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, while acquiring land for settlements by driving Palestinian farmers off the land, refusing to let them back on, and squatting on the land until they declare it “unoccupied” and thus free for illegal settlers to move on.

It is Israel’s handling of this situation that led to Desmond Tutu calling the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians “apartheid.” I think Desmond Tutu would know. It also led to Jimmy Carter writing a book entitled “Peace not Apartheid.” Both men have been charged with anti-Semitism, a challenge that carries baggage since the Holocaust happened only 70 years ago. In this situation though (with both men being followers of Jesus) Jimmy and Desmond weren’t spitting hatred but speaking truth to power, and thinking of the long-term good of both Israelis and Palestinians.

A good example of what not to do, of simplistic and close-minded thinking came from Condolezza Rice (who could’ve been working on this relationship for three and a half years already), who said she found it “hard to understand what is going to be gained by having discussions with Hamas about peace when Hamas is in fact the impediment to peace.” Well, Condi, Hamas plays a role in the problem, yes. But so does Israel in their state terror on the Palestinian people. And so does the United States in giving a blank check to Israel of support. You’re the Secretary of State of the United States of America, and that’s all you can come up with?

*UPDATE TO ADD* Carter made a speech today (4/21/08 ) as a result of his talks in the region that (surprise surprise) includes concessions Hamas would be willing to make as a result of direct talks. Here’s a quote

Carter urged Israel to engage in direct negotiations with Hamas, saying failure to do so was hampering peace efforts.

“We do not believe that peace is likely and certainly that peace is not sustainable unless a way is found to bring Hamas into the discussions in some way,” he said. “The present strategy of excluding Hamas and excluding Syria is just not working.”

Sermon Visuals from March 30th

This was the second Sunday worship gathering in a multi-week focus on “Practicing Resurrection” as we celebrate Easter (which is a season of the church year, not one Sunday). Last Sunday, I mentioned that the deepest meaning of the resurrection was not that Jesus rose from the dead. A deep understanding of the Bible shows that God did that to more than a few people (among them, Lazarus, and later, a guy who fell out of a window while listening to what must have been a terribly boring message from the apostle Paul). And the deepest meaning of the resurrection was not even that Jesus didn’t die, because two others in the pages of the Bible never died a natural death. Of course, this may sound shocking for me to say this, but I’m no Jesus Seminar-follower with their belief that the resurrection was merely metaphorical and their confident assertions that the disciples knew this too *cough* BS *cough* (sorry, something in my throat).

Of course Jesus rose from the dead and ascended to heaven.

But that wasn’t the deepest meaning. Take a gander at 1 Corinthians 15, and look for three red-flag themes; futility, hope, and firstfruits. The link to the sermon is here. It’s just a raw copy and paste job right now. I’ll shape it up to follow the flow of thoughts here in a bit, but I’ve got schoolwork.

My basic contention is that Jesus in his resurrection placed the rebellious power of death under his feet, scoffed at peoples’ attempt to thwart his purposes, and in so doing, freed us from the fear and finality of death by giving us the hope of resurrection. In order to carry that hope, we must invest all of who we are in his kingdom, and freedom from the fear of death enables us to live with hope now; that no situation is too dark for God’s light and life to enter, even if our lives are snuffed out in the process.

So this Sunday we talked about my friend at seminary Robert Russo, his organization Christians for the Mountains, and their battle against the disgusting practice of Mountain Top Removal (driven mainly by the corporation Massey Energy and others). These folks are followers of Jesus, and heroes in my book (maybe even “latter-day saints”? haha!)

As for the pictures, the first is of Robert, the second shows the enormity of the “dragline” that is employed in MTR, the third shows a “valley fill” (where the company dumps the mountain as they grade it, thus clogging up watersheds, altering streams, shredding the ecosystem, and creating a place where when it rains, flash floods rip through the area), the fourth, fifth, and sixth show Kayford Mountain, WV, and the desecration of the land over a three year time-span (this is being done over hundreds of thousands of acreage in WV, KT, NV, and VA), and the seventh and eighth show an area of WV on Google Earth with satellite photos taken before and after MTR operations. I’d encourage you to download the Kayford pictures and flip through them on your computer back and forth quickly. It’s a shocking difference.

march 30 2 march 30 3

march 30 4 march 30 7

march 30 8 march 30 9

march 30 5 march 30 6

Nate Myers gets very frustrated and works hard for a solid response.

I’ve been getting these emails recently, you see, that frustrate me.  Here’s the text for one of them;

The Bible warns us of Barack Obama!
Body: The Bible warns us of Barack Obama! Please Read All!
Body: The Bible has warned us that ‘A man will come from the East that will be charismatic in nature and have proposed solutions for all our problems and his rhetoric will attract many supporters!’

When will our pathetic Nation quit turning their back on God and understand that this man is ‘A Muslim’….First, Last and always….and we are AT WAR with the Muslim Nation, whether our bleeding-heart, secular, Liberal friends believe it or not. This man fits every description from the Bible of the ‘Anti-Christ’!

I’m just glad to know that there are others that are frightened by this man!

Who is Barack Obama?

Very interesting and something that should be considered in your choice.

If you do not ever forward anything else, please forward this to all your contacts…this is very scary to think of what lies ahead of us here in our own United States…better heed this and pray about it and share it.

snopes.com ..’ confirms this is factual. Check for yourself.

Who is Barack Obama?

Probable U. S. presidential candidate, Barack Hussein Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a black MUSLIM from Nyangoma-Kogel, Kenya and Ann Dunham, a white ATHEIST from Wichita , Kansas. Obama’s parents met at the University of Hawaii. When Obama was two years old, his parents divorced. His father returned to Kenya. His mother then married Lolo Soetoro, a RADICAL Muslim from Indonesia. When Obama was 6 years old, the family relocated to Indonesia. Obama attended a MUSLIM school in Jakarta. He also spent two years in a Catholic school.

Obama takes great care to conceal the fact that he is a Muslim. He is quick to point out that, ‘He was once a Muslim, but that he also attended Catholic school.’ Obama’s political handlers are attempting to make it appear that that he is not a radical.
Obama’s introduction to Islam came via his father, and that this influence was temporary at best. In reality, the senior Obama returned to Kenya soon after the divorce, and never again had any direct influence over his son’s education.

Lolo Soetoro, the second husband of Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham, introduced his stepson to Islam. Obama was enrolled in a Wahabi school in Jakarta.
Wahabism is the RADICAL teaching that is followed by the Muslim terrorists who are now waging Jihad against the western world. Since it is politically expedient to be a CHRISTIAN when seeking major public office in the United States, Barack Hussein Obama has joined the United Church of Christ in an attempt to downplay his Muslim background. ALSO, keep in mind that when he was sworn into office he DID NOT use the Holy Bible, but instead the Koran.

Barack Hussein Obama will NOT recite the Pledge of Allegiance nor will he show any reverence for our flag. While others place their hands over their hearts, Obama turns his back to the flag and slouches. Do you want someone like this as your PRESIDENT? Let us all remain alert concerning Obama’s expected presidential candidacy.

The Muslims have said they plan on destroying the US from the inside out, what better way to start than at the highest level – through the President of the United States, one of their own!

Please forward to everyone you know. Would you want this man leading our country?…… NOT ME!


Needless to say, I was frustrated from this email forward, so decided to write back, and here’s my response;

To whom it may concern;

Be very, very careful about the sources we get our “news” from. Snopes.com, the supposed source for this “factually correct” myth on Barack Obama, noticed this email was getting publicity and took time to completely refute it themselves. Here’s the link to their refutation, where they say themselves,

“One version of the email in circulation claims ‘We were told this checked out on snopes.com. It is factual. Check for yourself,’ and includes a link to this website. It is our guess that whoever included that bit was counting on folks to not check, as our article says the opposite, that the polemic is not factual but rather false.”

I get innumerable amounts of emails from my friends and others around that usually start off with something designed to instill fear in us like “The Bible warns us of _____________” or “It is clear the evil emenating from ________________ is from Satan,” or a bunch of different intros. I would urge all my friends and acquaintances to look beyond the fear-mongering and stop, look at a variety of different sources, read up on the issue, talk to your friends, and ask whoever sends us the email where they believe the Bible warns of _________________, and ask them why they think it talks about this person. A good question might be,

“You say _______ fits every description of the Anti-Christ. I’d love to hear your description of the anti-Christ and we can talk.”

If we don’t have time to stop and read up on whatever the issue is, I would urge us (I try to make it a practice of mine) NOT to forward the email.

Regarding this email, first off, if we deeply value the Scriptures, we should be a bit put off right at the beginning by someone claiming that we are “at war with the Muslim Nation.” Biblically speaking, the people of God are at war against the powers of evil and chaos in this world, and those very powers exist just as much within us as in some people or place across the globe. I won’t eagerly jump to the defense of the Muslim religion because I think there is much that is twisted and wrong in it, but I DO realize Muslims are human beings made in the image of God who are important enough for Christians to give our lives for. Remember, “God so loved the WORLD” in John 3:16, not “God so loved EVERYONE LIKE ME.” So no, “we” (Christians who care about Scripture and how it forms our lives) are NOT at war with the Muslim Nation.

Secondly, I certainly don’t think Barack Obama is the savior of the world, but he’s certainly far from the anti-Christ. Vote for whomever you will, but we should know the facts, not a chain propoganda email sent around to make folks afraid.

Barack is an American citizen who was born in the United States, and while he DID live in Indonesia for awhile and attend a “Muslim” school for a bit, it was not a Wahabi Madrassa as this email seeks to state. In fact, after FOX News ran with the rumor that he attended such a school on their broadcasting without doing the work to either go to or research the school itself, CNN did just that. CNN dispatched their senior international correspondent John Vause directly to Jakarta to investigate, and he went to the school which, it turns out, is a public school. Hardi Priyono, the school headmaster, said, “This is a public school. We don’t focus on religion. In our daily lives, we try to respect religion, but we don’t give preferential treatment.” One of Obama’s classmates, Bandug Winadijanto, was interviewed, and he said “It is not an Islamic school. It’s general. There is a lot of Christians, Buddhist, also Confucian…so that’s a mixed school.” Link to the story here.

It should be noted, and I will bold this section for emphasis, that the Fox News show (Fox and Friends) that broadcast this rumor backtracked on the story the following week, while still repeatedly citing the article from conservative site Insight that started the whole rumor. In our search for news that can be trusted, will we err on the side of the news organization that actually tracked down the radical Muslim rumor (CNN) or the news organization that cited an anonymous source (Insight, then Fox News)? I think I know which one I’ll be more likely to trust.

The reality is that as a child, Obama spent four years in Indonesia with his step-father, a non-practicing Muslim, and his mother. Between ages 6 and 8, Obama attended a local Muslim school in Jakarta; after that, he was enrolled in a Roman Catholic school. In his book Dreams Of My Father (p.142), Obama writes:

In Indonesia, I’d spent 2 years at a Muslim school, 2 years at a Catholic school. In the Muslim school, the teacher wrote to tell mother I made faces during Koranic studies. In the Catholic school, when it came time to pray, I’d pretend to close my eyes, then peek around the room. Nothing happened. No angels descended.

In his more recent book, The Audacity of Hope, Obama writes (p.274), “Without the money to go to the international school that most expatriate children attended, I went to local Indonesian schools and ran the streets with the children of farmers, servants, tailors, and clerks.”

So no, Obama did not attend a radical Wahabi school and is not and never has been a Muslim. In fact, the man Obama’s mother married in fact was not a radical Muslim, but a non-practicing Muslim, which most Muslims in the world who value their faith would call no Muslim at all. And the quote from this forward that Obama supposedly said that he “was once a Muslim, but he also attended Catholic school” is patently false. I’d love to see the source for this quote.

In addition, Obama did not use the Koran when sworn into office (news source link here), the claim that he will not recite the Pledge of Allegiance (and in fact turns his back and slouches) is false, and he addressed a series of these claims in a presidential debate;

If the video embedding doesn’t work, the link to the video is here.

Again, Barack Obama is not and never has been Muslim, and describes himself as a Christian, as rooted in the Christian tradition, and his membership in the United Church of Christ began in the mid-1980s, long before he contemplated a political career.

Let the record state, however, that I, Nathan Myers, am not endorsing Obama as president, but I am mystified by the amount of fear-mongering and false propaganda surrounding this man, and so I decided to dig for myself and respond. I have my own issues with Barack Obama, and I question most politicians’ supposed “born again” or “Christian” labels, but that’s a whole ‘nother issue in itself.

Get educated, vote responsibly, and don’t expect a Savior from Republicans or Democrats, Americans, Brits, or Chinese.

Last I checked, there’s only one of those.

Nate

 

What’s the definition of a rogue nation?

I’m interested.  I really, really am.  And I guess it depends on who’s defining the term as to who’s defined as one. I’ve got an idea for a definition.

How about:  a nation that consistently and egregiously defies international law to do what it wants, caring only about its interests and neglecting the good of the whole.

We, the United States, certainly have used that against that loony Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, against North Korea, and it was one of the main substantiations for the war in Iraq.  We said things like “That Saddam Hussein is a rogue leader of a rogue nation, constantly thumbing his nose at international law.”

Try these links on for size.

“Memo, Bush’s power trumps laws on torture”

In an excerpt from the article,

The president’s wartime power as commander in chief would not be limited by the U.N. treaties against torture. ‘Our previous opinions make clear that customary international law is not federal law and that the president is free to override it at his discretion,’ said the memo written by John Yoo, who was then deputy assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel.

The memo also offered a defense in case any interrogator was charged with violating U.S. or international laws.  ‘Finally, even if the criminal prohibitions outline above applied, and an interrogation method might violate those prohibitions, necessity or self-defense could provide justifications for any criminal liability,’ the memo concluded.”

Here’s another fun link. “Chertoff; Laws to be waived for Border Defense”

Excerpt:

The Department of Homeland Security will bypass environmental and land-management laws to build hundreds of miles of border fence between the United States and Mexico, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said Tuesday.  “Criminal activity at the border does not stop for endless debate or protracted litigation,” Chertoff said. “These waivers will enable important security projects to keep moving forward.”

Chertoff cited a congressional requirement that 361 miles of fence be completed by the end of the year. He also pointed out that Congress had given him the authority to bypass laws.

And the international image of the United States slips further…what’s the definition of a rogue state again? Oh,  a nation that consistently and egregiously defies international law to do what it wants, caring only about its interests and neglecting the good of the whole. And a couple of the quotes again; “customary international law is not federal law and that the president is free to override it at his discretion,” and “Congress had given him the authority to bypass laws.” I smell hypocrisy.

Another title for this post could be “When nationalism is idolatry.”

Evidently McCain has “work to do” to gain evangelical vote…

The statement in the title line above isn’t a revolutionary one by any means, but I just read an article with a quote by Tony Perkins, the Family Research Council President, that made me laugh out loud/get angry.  It’s a quote that captures the sheer stupidity and narrow-mindedness of evangelicals who drool over the Republican Party, never questioning or critically examining how certain stances line up with a lifestyle of following Jesus.  Perkins said McCain has injured his relationship with evangelicals and social conservatives.  How?  Check out the quote;

“Perkins said McCain has injured his relationship with evangelicals and social conservatives by joining Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold (Wis.) in sponsoring campaign finance legislation. He also mentioned McCain’s membership in the so-called bipartisan “Gang of 14” senators who worked to accommodate one another on judicial appointments, and his refusal to endorse a constitutional amendment on gay marriage. 

Now, I can see the constitutional amendment for gay marriage being an issue evangelical Christians should care about, but the other two are flat-out laughable and show how evangelical Christians have been co-opted by American conservatism and the Republican Party.  Evidently if one acts in a bipartisan way or accommodates the opinions and visions of Democrats for even a second, it injures their relationship with evangelicals…according to Perkins.

Can someone please explain to me how this makes any sense at all?

Did Perkins consider the simple reality that the McCain-Feingold bill was a campaign finance reform (one of the best legislative pieces to come down the pipe in awhile), and not McCain working with Feingold for gay marriage to be legalized along with all heterosexuals to be expelled from the city limits in San Fran?

This is just ridiculous is what this is.

Since I’m feeling generous today, here’s another quote on the subject from evangelical Zionist charismatic champion John Hagee in his 2000 book God’s Candidate. I’ll give you one guess on who he KNEW it was, and I’ll give you a hint, it wasn’t Al Gore or Ralph Nader. Here’s the quote;

The Democratic Party, Hagee wrote, “is the home of those who advocate homosexuality, abortion, free-sex, unlimited handouts, maximum taxation, little freedom from government control, and toleration of drug use.” The GOP, in contrast, “is the home of social conservatives who believe in the sanctity of life, hard work, clean moral living, limited government interference in our lives, minimum taxation, and a return to Bible-based societal values.”

Love me some stereotypes. LOVE ME some stereotypes.