Ultra-Orthodox Jewish Rabbis warn that a university education is "dangerous" for young women.

Courtesy of the Independent:  

Ultra-Orthodox Jewish rabbis have banned women from going to university, The Independent has learned. 

The strict Satmar sect issued the decree, seen by The Independent, warning that university education for women is “dangerous”. Written in Yiddish, the decree warns: “It has lately become the new trend that girls and married women are pursuing degrees in special education. Some attend classes and others online. And so we’d like to let their parents know that it is against the Torah. 

“We will be very strict about this. No girls attending our school are allowed to study and get a degree. It is dangerous. Girls who will not abide will be forced to leave our school. Also, we will not give any jobs or teaching position in the school to girls who’ve been to college or have a degree. 

"We have to keep our school safe and we can’t allow any secular influences in our holy environment. It is against the base upon which our Mosed was built.”

The day that becoming more educated threatens your belief system, that is the day that you need to change your belief system.

You know I spend a lot of time going after Christianity here on IM.

But the main reason that I single out that particular religion is because it is the one whose negative effects we feel the most strongly here in America, and that one that negatively impacts our politics and education.

Trust me when I say I have the same disdain for ALL religions which argue against both men and women learning more about the world and universe which surrounds us.

And that certainly includes Judaism Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Mormonism, and even some forms of Buddhism. (Yes, I realize there are other religions, but I don't have all day to list them all.)

If I have any belief at all it is that as human beings it is our right and our responsibility to learn as much as we can and to help push forward the limits of human understanding.

If any religion interferes with that, then it is undermining who we are as sentient beings.

The internet continues to pound that stake through the heart of religion.

Courtesy of Alternet: 

While the burgeoning atheist movement loves throwing conferences and selling books, a huge chunk--possibly most--of its resources go toward the Internet. This isn’t borne out of laziness or a hostility to wearing pants so much as a belief that the Internet is uniquely positioned as the perfect tool for sharing arguments against religion with believers who are experiencing doubts. It’s searchable, it allows back-and-forth debate, and it makes proving your arguments through links much easier. Above all else, it’s private. An online search on atheism is much easier to hide than, say, a copy of The God Delusion on your nightstand. 

In recent months, this sense that the Internet is the key for atheist outreach has started to move from “hunch” to actual, evidence-based theory. Earlier this year, Allen Downey of the Olin College of Engineering in Massachusetts examined the spike in people declaring they had no religion that started in the '90s and found that while there are many factors contributing to it--dropping familial pressure, increased levels of college education--increased Internet usage was likely a huge part of it, accounting for up to 25 percent of the decline in religious belief. While cautioning that correlation does not mean causation, Downey did go on to point out that since so many other factors were controlled for, it’s a safe bet to conclude that the access to varied thought and debate the Internet provides is persuading people to drop their religions. 

But in the past few months, that hypothesis grew even stronger when a major American religion basically had to admit that Internet arguments against their faith is putting them on their heels. The Church of Latter Day Saints has quietly released a series of essays, put together by church historians, addressing some of the less savory aspects of their history, such as the practice of polygamy or the ban on black members. The church sent out a memo in September telling church leaders to direct believers who have questions about their religion’s history to these essays, which they presented as a counter to “detractors” who “spread misinformation and doubt.”

The Mormon church made the case that the websites which were causing a crisis in faith among its followers were disseminating "disinformation" but in fact the converse was true, and the websites were providing historically accurate information that the church could no longer hide from its members.

The posts made on the Church of Latter Day Saints website were really an attempt to put into context embarrassing information that the church had denied was true for decades.

Having such recent historical facts working against, kind of makes the Mormon church the low hanging fruit, however information is being shared which also challenges the very foundations of Christianity, and which has resulted in some rather startling converts to Atheism.

It is no secret how I feel about all of this, and why I think the internet may be the best thing since...well it sure beats the hell out of sliced bread.

By the way Bill Maher had some good fun with this Joseph Smith story Friday night on Real Time, and it evolved into a rather interesting, and entertaining conversation about religion in general.
You know I sometimes feel badly for Andrew Sullivan. He is so right about somethings (Like Trig's birth) and so wrong about others.

Now THAT'S a coincidence.

It kind of reminds me of L. Ron Hubbard quote, "You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion."

I mean it is almost as if these two were charlatans who recognized how easily manipulated people were by noticing the sway that previously established religions had over their actions, and purse strings. 

But nah, that's just crazy talk.

Today's horrible parenting advice courtesy of Glenn Beck.

From the good folks at Salon:  

Glenn Beck branched out on Wednesday from his usual political conspiracy crazy-making to dispense some terrible parenting advice. You see, Beck believes that parents should use verbal abuse and physical intimidation to teach their children that their rights “come from God” by getting “in their face” and making them cry. 

“Well, they’re going to cry, it’ll hurt their feelings” yelled a visibly agitated Beck. “Push them! Because if you don’t do it now, it’s going to be much worse when they’re pushed and they’re shoved and they’re shot. Push them! Teach them! The need to know the truth and the need to be pushed up against the wall once in a while so they know they can defend themselves.”

Just so you know Beck has four children of his own. Four poor, clearly emotionally abused, children. 

I work with emotionally and physically abused children and I am here to say that pushing your child up against a wall, and yelling at them, does NOT make them tougher. It makes them emotionally fragile, unable to form trusting relationships, and suffering from horrible lack of self esteem.

Oh, and they also often grow up to abuse their own children as well, so the cycle continues.

By the way exactly WHO is it that Glenn Beck believes will shoot children for believing their rights come from God? The people who may disagree with that are unlikely to resort to violence.

I occasionally hear a little Glenn Beck on the radio when I am out driving, not often but occasionally. And I am here to tell you that he is so much more crazy these days then he was on his final days at Fox that it is almost unbelievable. I have no idea how anybody takes him seriously, but if you meet somebody who does you should avoid that person at all cost.

Just a little advice courtesy of your Uncle Gryphen. 

Mitt Romney seriously loses his cool while discussing his Mormon faith on talk radio.

Okay we have been asking for awhile who is the REAL Mitt Romney.

Well here he is folks, and he is and ASSHOLE!

Update: I have learned that Romney did NOT know that he was being videotaped during this exchange. Essentially, just like the 47% comments, THAT is when you see the real Mitt Romney. And once you do you realize why he keeps his true personality hidden from the voters.

Update: If video won't play for you try clicking here.

Mitt Romney to be charged for violating the federal ethics in government law. Mitt Romney unethical? Whodathunkit? Update!

Courtesy of Truthout:

For Mitt Romney, it's one scary Halloween. The Presidential candidate has just learned that tomorrow afternoon (November 1) he will be charged by the United Automobile Workers (UAW) and other public interest groups with violating the federal ethics in government law by improperly concealing his multi-million dollar windfall from the auto industry bailout. 

At a press conference in Toledo, Bob King, President of the United Automobile Workers, will announce that his union and Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) have filed a formal complaint with the US Office of Government Ethics in Washington stating that Gov. Romney improperly hid a profit of $15.3 million to $115.0 million in Ann Romney's so-called "blind" trust. 

The union chief says, "The American people have a right to know about Gov. Romney’s potential conflicts of interest, such as the profits his family made from the auto rescue. It’s time for Gov. Romney to disclose or divest.” 

“While Romney was opposing the rescue of one of the nation’s most important manufacturing sectors, he was building his fortunes with his Delphi investor group, making his fortunes off the misfortunes of others,” King added. 

The Romneys' gigantic windfall was hidden inside an offshore corporation inside a limited partnership inside a trust which both concealed the gain and reduces taxes on it. 

Holy crap! So what, it's not ethical to condemn an auto bailout, greedily profit from it, and then hide those profits from the government and the American people?

You know considering that Romney literally used his church as cover to avoid paying taxes for fifteen years, and has refused to provide more than two years of his tax returns, this fits right in with the idea that Romney is essentially Gordon Gekko come to life, (The point is ladies and gentlemen that greed, for lack of a better word, is good.)

He is all about making money in any way possible and simply does not care about morality or ethics. Remember the favorite quote of his campaign is that he "operated in accordance with the law."  Not that he was ethical, but that he cannot be prosecuted for what he has done.

Well perhaps this time Romney will learn that the bar for determining what is right or wrong should not be whether or not you may have to serve prison time for it.

Gee and here we thought that Mitt the Twit received his biggest fright yesterday when he saw this image.

Update: Believe it or not I actually found something even more frightening to Mitt Romney than the image above.

And we thought the Republicans were panicking BEFORE!

The secret never before seen footage of Mormon Temple rites

I first saw this a few days ago, but since of course I tend to find ALL religious rites somewhat ridiculous, was not sure if it was something that needed to be shared.

Since then however this video has gone viral, and is having a rather substantive impact on those who see it, and did not realize before exactly how different the Mormon religion was from Christianity.

And no folks it is NOT the same, in fact in my opinion it can no more be considered a Christian religion than can Islam.

Go ahead check it out for yourself, and when you do remember that Mitt Romney has participated in these rituals as well.  In fact as a Bishop he might very well have officiated at them.

If Sarah Palin's fundamentalist beliefs caused you concern, THIS should send a chill right up your spine.

Hah! We're the GOP ticket and YOU'RE stuck with us! Update!

Don't be fooled by the televised unity seemingly on display during the Republican convention. MOST of the Republican party simply cannot stand Mitt Romney.

He is disliked by the Evangelicals.

He is disliked by the Republican establishment.

His fellow opponents in the Republican primaries did not simply attack him in order to win the nomination, they attacked him because they actually COULDN'T stand him!

Hell even his fellow Mormons Jon Huntsman and Harry Reid have attacked him and called him a liar numerous times.

And after what happened with the Ron Paul delegates, you KNOW he is despised by the Teabaggers.

Sure Paul Ryan is more popular, but not popular enough to alter people's inherent dislike for this arrogant son of privilege.

In fact he is SO disliked that the minuscule bump he received after the convention has already evaporated. Let's face it, the only people voting for Mitt Romney are those who despise President Obama even more.

The only question is will that be enough?

In my opinion, not even close.

Update: I think this comic just about sums up why the Romney/Ryan convention bump was so short lived.

If Mitt Romney were REALLY honest about his religion.

As you all know I don't have much use for ANY religion, and rarely differentiate between which one is sillier, or more bizarre, than another.

However I just have to say that when it comes to how much BS you have to swallow in order to be an adherent, perhaps only Scientology can hold a candle to Mormonism.

Romney confuses the "Sikh" religion with "Sheik," a Muslim term for leader. Just so hard to keep the names for all of those different brown people straight isn't it Mitt?

Courtesy of ABC News:

 Mitt Romney misspoke tonight when referring to the shooting in Wisconsin that took place at a Sikh temple, mistakenly using an Arab honorific in reference to the religious group. 

Instead of saying that the shooting occurred at a Sikh temple, Romney referred to it as a sheik temple. Sheik is a Muslim term for the leader of a village or tribe. Sikhs are not Muslims. 

“We obviously have challenges around the country. I was in Chicago earlier today. We had a moment of silence in honor of the people who lost their lives at that sheik temple,” said Romney, speaking to a group of donors gathered at a fundraiser at a West Des Moines country club. 

“I noted that it was a tragedy for many, many reasons. Among them are the fact that people, the sheik people are among the most peaceable and loving individuals you can imagine, as is their faith. And of course, the person who carried out this heinous act was a person motivated by racial hatred and religious intolerance. It’s really, really a tragedy,” he said. 

Rick Gorka, a spokesman for Romney, later clarified that the candidate “misspoke” adding that it was the “end of the day.”

Yeah it was the end of the day, Mitt was tires, and besides why would he give a shit?

After all until these people die so that his fellow Mormons can baptize them into their faith, it's not like they are his equal anyhow.

By the way wasn't Rick Gorka the guy that told the press to "kiss my ass" at the Polish holy site? Why yes he was!

Hmm, it appears that demonstrating respect for anybody's religion other than their own is not a high priority with the Romney camp now is it?

By the way here was a tweet from Richard Dawkins after he heard about the gaffe:

I guess if you are disrespectful to the religion of others, you can hardly complain about being called out on your OWN can you?

I think this is a question that deserves an answer. Don't you?

Apparently Mitt Romney is a homophobe and a bully from way back. Update, Romney responds.

"First off let me just say that I don't remember this incident. But if it happened, the guy had long hair, so he totally deserved it!"

Courtesy of the Washington Post:

Mitt Romney returned from a three-week spring break in 1965 to resume his studies as a high school senior at the prestigious Cranbrook School. Back on the handsome campus, studded with Tudor brick buildings and manicured fields, he spotted something he thought did not belong at a school where the boys wore ties and carried briefcases. John Lauber, a soft-spoken new student one year behind Romney, was perpetually teased for his nonconformity and presumed homosexuality. Now he was walking around the all-boys school with bleached-blond hair that draped over one eye, and Romney wasn’t having it. 

 “He can’t look like that. That’s wrong. Just look at him!” an incensed Romney told Matthew Friedemann, his close friend in the Stevens Hall dorm, according to Friedemann’s recollection. Mitt, the teenaged son of Michigan Gov. George Romney, kept complaining about Lauber’s look, Friedemann recalled. 

A few days later, Friedemann entered Stevens Hall off the school’s collegiate quad to find Romney marching out of his own room ahead of a prep school posse shouting about their plan to cut Lauber’s hair. Friedemann followed them to a nearby room where they came upon Lauber, tackled him and pinned him to the ground. As Lauber, his eyes filling with tears, screamed for help, Romney repeatedly clipped his hair with a pair of scissors. 

The incident was recalled similarly by five students, who gave their accounts independently of one another. Four of them — Friedemann, now a dentist; Phillip Maxwell, a lawyer; Thomas Buford, a retired prosecutor; and David Seed, a retired principal — spoke on the record. Another former student who witnessed the incident asked not to be named. The men have differing political affiliations, although they mostly lean Democratic. Buford volunteered for Barack Obama’s campaign in 2008. Seed, a registered independent, has served as a Republican county chairman in Michigan. All of them said that politics in no way colored their recollections. 

“It happened very quickly, and to this day it troubles me,” said Buford, the school’s wrestling champion, who said he joined Romney in restraining Lauber. Buford subsequently apologized to Lauber, who was “terrified,” he said. “What a senseless, stupid, idiotic thing to do.” 

“It was a hack job,” recalled Maxwell, a childhood friend of Romney who was in the dorm room when the incident occurred. “It was vicious.” 

“He was just easy pickins,” said Friedemann, then the student prefect, or student authority leader of Stevens Hall, expressing remorse about his failure to stop it. 

The incident transpired in a flash, and Friedemann said Romney then led his cheering schoolmates back to his bay-windowed room in Stevens Hall. 

Friedemann, guilt ridden, made a point of not talking about it with his friend and waited to see what form of discipline would befall Romney at the famously strict institution. Nothing happened.

Seriously, WTF? Well I guess now we understand why Romney won't support gay marriage!

Okay now before I start ripping into Romney, in the interest of full disclosure I should mention that I was once attacked in a elementary school bathroom by a bunch of older kids who wanted to cut my long hair. (I managed to escape and the boys were expelled for their actions.) So I may have some built in anger toward anybody who would bully somebody due to the length of their hair. However, to be honest, I have a lot of built in anger towards bullies in general, which I will share in a few minutes.

Now the excuse can be made that this incident happened a LONG TIME AGO. And that is fair, but it also demonstrates a character issue.  While true that prejudice can change over time, and that bullies can grow up to be contributing members of society, it is hard to  argue that a person who does not demonstrate empathy for other people at a younger age, suddenly develops it when they are older.

And in fact much of the criticisms toward Romney stem form his inability to "feel other people's pain," which this incident aligns with perfectly.

It is one thing to dislike a person's appearance, or even to call out an insult to demonstrate that dislike, but Romney attacked this young man, and encouraged others to assist him in the boy's humiliation.

That is WAY beyond a "high school prank."

In 1965 Romney was eighteen years old, easily old enough to determine the difference between right and wrong. And if he did not know it then, what makes us think he knows it now?

Bill Maher explains, for the ignorant, that Atheism is NOT a religion and then takes a moment to unbaptize Mitt Romney's dead father-in-law.

(H/T to the Hollywood Reporter.)

Courtesy of SNL: Jesus visits Tim Tebow.

You know Jesus kind of makes a good point here.

I can NEVER understand why an athlete who spends their life honing their skills, and who overcomes great obstacles to emerge victorious, would then turn around and give ALL of the credit to the fact that they were a better Christian or more dedicated in their praying than their opponents.

Then why bother turning out for practice at all?

And why, WHY would anybody believe that a being of such great power and awareness would waste their time watching basketball, hockey, or football games?  Just another thing about the religious mindset that I will never understand.

P.S. By the way the last part of the skit is pretty funny, so don't skip it.

What do Mitt Romney, flip flopping on abortion, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer have in common? You would be surprised.

"Look just tell me what I need to believe to get elected, and THAT'S what I believe!"

Courtesy of Jezebel:

Judith Dushku is a professor of history at Suffolk University, an outspoken Mormon feminist, and the mother of Dollhouse and Buffy star Eliza Dushku. She's also the founder of Exponent II, a Mormon feminist publication. In 1990, Ms. Dushku's magazine published the story of an anonymous 41 year old woman who experienced a life-threatening blood clot while she was pregnant for the sixth time. The woman was told by doctors that treatment of the clot would threaten the pregnancy, and so an abortion was necessary. The Mormon faith officially opposes abortion except in extreme cases, and women who are members of the church and seek an abortion are required to petition church elders for permission. She and her husband petitioned the Church to authorize them to receive the procedure, and a church elder told her and her husband that the procedure looked like unfortunate but unavoidable. 

On the day of the abortion, the couple showed up at the hospital only to be greeted by their bishop, who had shown up, unannounced, to try to prevent her from going through with it, regardless of the fact that a church official with a higher rank than his had already given the okay. The bishop was determined to make his case against the life-saving surgery, and he was a total dick about it. According to a 2007 interview with Dushku, the following exchange occurred, 

He said – What do you think you're doing? 

She said – Well, we have to abort the baby because I have these blood clots. 

And he said something to the effect of – Well, why do you get off easy when other women have their babies? 

And she said – What are you talking about? This is a life threatening situation. 

And he said – Well what about the life of the baby? 

And she said – I have four other children and I think it would be really irresponsible to continue the pregnancy. 

The bishop who tried to block that selfish, selfish clotted up woman from saving her own life with a legal medical procedure was one Mitt Romney. The woman he attempted to block did go through with her abortion and lived to see her four teenage children grow up. Her family later left the church. 

When the Exponent II story was originally published, both the identity of the woman and the identity of the bishop were concealed. 

Several years later, Dushku was pleasantly surprised to read that Romney was running for Senate as a pro-choice candidate, and even thought she could lend her support to Romney and his newfound pro-woman political stance. When she visited his office, he told her that he only supported a pro-choice agenda because church elders in Provo had told him that it was the only way he'd win the seat in the liberal state. 

Dushku expressed her dismay at Romney's position of convenience, and he replied that he was totally fine with being pro choice for the sake of a campaign, as he had an aunt who died of a botched abortion. The two parted ways unsatisfied, and shortly thereafter Dushku revealed that Romney was the anti-choice bishop who had blocked the anonymous woman from having an abortion more than a decade before. The two friends had a falling out and stopped speaking. 

She attempted to restore the friendship after Romney lost to Senator Ted Kennedy, but Romney rebuked her in the butthurtiest way possible, telling Dushku that he never wanted to speak to her again. She says, 

He said I'm so angry at you. I don't ever want to talk about this again. And I don't want to talk to you. 

And I said, I'm sorry about that Mitt because I thought we could have our political differences and remain at least cordial. 

He said – No. That's not possible. 

Some fans of Romney believe that he's long ago left behind his 1970's zealot ways. But Judith Dushku isn't convinced, and neither are we.

Rarely does a story come along that is so chock full of bizarre coincidences, stunning revelations, and potentially damaging information for a politician, yet here we are.

So what we learn here is that Mitt Romney was once such a pro-life zealot that he attempted to convince a woman to sacrifice her life, and deprive her four children of their mother, all to ensure the birth of a baby who would forever know that they had been the cause of their mother's death. Seriously?

Attempting to shame this woman after the church had already given her permission to make this extraordinarily difficult choice, is unconscionable. (And I have to wonder, what did the LDS church think of Romney's interference?)

And then we learn that despite the fact that Romney seemed to feel no compunction about asking a woman to give up her life in support of his pro-life beliefs, that he HIMSELF was willing to cast them aside for the opportunity to win a seat in the Senate. Which means that either Mitt was NEVER that sold on the whole pro-life thing, or that he is a fucking liar!

And if that isn't enough, we also learn that Romney is a pissy spoiled brat who seemingly holds a grudge forever.

Personally I find it VERY appropriate that the two front runners in the GOP race for President, are two lying pieces of shit. I have to say that after reading this, my opinion of Romney is even lower than it was before, and THAT is really saying something!

I think I will make myself feel better by putting up a picture of Eliza "Faith" Dushku, of whom I am a big fan.

There that's better. And BTW who knew she has such an interesting mom?

"Romney: The Deceiver." It looks like the DNC is doubling down on ole Mittens.

By the way this may be more than just a political tactic for Romney.  There is some evidence that this is deeply ingrained in his character and in fact encouraged by his faith.

Lying for the Lord refers to the practice of lying to protect the image of and belief in the Mormon religion, a practice which Mormonism itself fosters in various ways. From Joseph Smith's denial of having more than one wife, to polygamous Mormon missionaries telling European investigators that reports about polygamy in Utah were lies put out by "anti-Mormons" and disgruntled ex-members, to Gordon B. Hinckley's dishonest equivocation on national television over Mormon doctrine, Mormonism's history seems replete with examples of lying. Common members see such examples as situations where lying is justified. For the Mormon, loyalty and the welfare of the church are more important than the principle of honesty, and plausible denials and deception by omission are warranted by an opportunity to have the Mormon organization seen in the best possible light. This is part of the larger package of things that lead many to describe Mormonism as a cult. "Lying for the lord" is part of Mormonism's larger deceptive mainstreaming tactics, and conversion numbers would drastically lower if important Mormon beliefs were fully disclosed to investigators.

I have no idea how much credibility to give to this line of thought, but the evidence of Mittens playing fast and loose with the truth is overwhelming.

In my personal life I have had some very unfortunate dealings with members of this faith, but I have never felt the blame lay with their belief system. However I will admit to being a little uncomfortable with the secrecy surrounding the Mormon religion. Which is much the way I feel about Scientology as well.

So in Romney's case do we feel his Mormonism has any impact on his ability to tell the truth, or do we chalk it up to good old fashioned Republican lying?

Courtesy of SNL: Marriott TV brings us “yet another GOP debate,” live from “Conference Room 5 in the Cedar Falls Marriott.”

Okay this damn thing is hysterical!

Bill Maher takes on Mitt Romney and Mormonism. Let the outrage begin!

As a person unencumbered with the need to defend any belief based on magical thinking I am free to dismiss ALL religions out of hand.

However as I have grown older and more tolerant I have determined that it is perfectly okay for people to believe in whatever makes their lives easier to handle, just so long as they do NOT attempt to inflict their faith on me and my family.

Which is kind of why I have always been somewhat less tolerant of Mormons, the Jehovah's Witnesses, and Evangelicals. Anybody who comes to my door to tell me their version of a "truth" strikes me as similar to a group going door to door to teach a "stork" or "cabbage patch" based version of human reproduction, base solely on the lies told to them as young children.

It is fine to have a personal faith, but once you take it to the streets, or into politics, you are essentially opening yourself up to increased scrutiny and possible ridicule, which you have to be willing to accept in my opinion.

I can tell you that I have caused more than one door to door proselytizer to run for my home with their hands covering their ears in my time. It never would have happened if they had not incorrectly assumed that the only reason I was NOT a member of their denomination was because I had not been exposed to their version of "truth." Sadly for them, and their tenuous grasp on their faith, such was not the case.

Anybody have a similar point of view to share, or wish to tell me how wrong I am? Feel free.

(H/T to Mediaite.)

Now its "on like Donkey Kong" as Rick Perry surrogate calls Mitt Romney's Mormon faith a "cult."

Courtesy of the Daily Beast:

Robert Jeffress, Southern Baptist Convention leader and pastor of the 10,000-member First Baptist Church of Dallas, has never endorsed a political candidate, but at the Values Voters Summit on Friday, he announced that he was throwing his support behind Rick Perry. “I don’t think Michele Bachmann is going to win the nomination. I don’t believe that Herman Cain is going to win the nomination. I think it’s going to come down to a Perry-Romney fight,” he told me shortly before taking the stage to introduce Perry to the crowd. “And I felt like at this time, it was critical for a pastor to tell other Christians why it is imperative to vote for a Christian rather than a non-Christian.” 

In other words, Jeffress, one of the first major religious right figures to choose sides in the GOP primary, wants to make sure that the Republican Party doesn’t nominate a Mormon. Romney’s religion, he says, “is going to play a huge role. It’s a role that many people are unwilling to speak about.” He, however, is more than willing. “Quite frankly, part of my hesitancy in supporting Governor Romney is I do not want to give credibility to a cult like Mormonism, which I believe having a Mormon president would do,” he says. 

After Perry’s speech—a fairly underwhelming iteration of his standard stump address—Jeffress expressed similar sentiments to reporters gathered at Washington’s Omni Shoreham hotel for the religious right confab. Soon, the story of Perry’s anti-Mormon ally was all over the place. This creates a challenge for the Texas governor, but it also gives him an opportunity to capitalize on some evangelicals’ antipathy to the Church of Latter-day Saints.


Look let's be honest. ALL religions start off as a cult.

The only real difference between a cult and a religion is the number of believers, and who is disseminating the information.  I doubt even the most devout Christian could effectively argue that Christ's little band of apostles were not considered a cult by the Jews of that time  who eventually decided to take steps to rid themselves of the annoying rabbi with the God complex.

Whatever did happen to that little cult that could anyhow?

I find it even more humorous that all of this drama occurred at the Values Voters Summit.  A place that neither Rick Perry nor Mitt Romney should even have bothered to show up to. At least not according to these results:

Value Voter Summit Straw Poll Results 
Ron Paul – 37 percent 
Herman Cain – 23 percent 
Rick Santorum – 16 percent 
Rick Perry – 8 percent 
Michele Bachmann – 8 percent 
Mitt Romney – 4 percent 
Newt Gingrich – 3 percent 
Undecided – 1 percent 
Jon Huntsman – 0 percent

But hey, at least Rick Perry is not a loser AND a fake Christian, now is he?

New York Times editor compares religious belief to belief that space aliens live among us, and suggests that candidates for President should explain their faith.

Oh I LIKE this guy!

Courtesy of Bill Keller of the NYT:

If a candidate for president said he believed that space aliens dwell among us, would that affect your willingness to vote for him? Personally, I might not disqualify him out of hand; one out of three Americans believe we have had Visitors and, hey, who knows? But I would certainly want to ask a few questions. Like, where does he get his information? Does he talk to the aliens? Do they have an economic plan? This year’s Republican primary season offers us an important opportunity to confront our scruples about the privacy of faith in public life — and to get over them. We have an unusually large number of candidates, including putative front-runners, who belong to churches that are mysterious or suspect to many Americans. Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman are Mormons, a faith that many conservative Christians have been taught is a “cult” and that many others think is just weird. (Huntsman says he is not “overly religious.”) Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann are both affiliated with fervid subsets of evangelical Christianity — and Rick Santorum comes out of the most conservative wing of Catholicism — which has raised concerns about their respect for the separation of church and state, not to mention the separation of fact and fiction. 

I honestly don’t care if Mitt Romney wears Mormon undergarments beneath his Gap skinny jeans, or if he believes that the stories of ancient American prophets were engraved on gold tablets and buried in upstate New York, or that Mormonism’s founding prophet practiced polygamy (which was disavowed by the church in 1890). Every faith has its baggage, and every faith holds beliefs that will seem bizarre to outsiders. I grew up believing that a priest could turn a bread wafer into the actual flesh of Christ. 

But I do want to know if a candidate places fealty to the Bible, the Book of Mormon (the text, not the Broadway musical) or some other authority higher than the Constitution and laws of this country. It matters to me whether a president respects serious science and verifiable history — in short, belongs to what an official in a previous administration once scornfully described as “the reality-based community.” I do care if religious doctrine becomes an excuse to exclude my fellow citizens from the rights and protections our country promises. 

I am sorry but there should not even be any debate about this.  Of COURSE we should know what kind of beliefs might inform the decision making of potentially the most powerful person in the world.

Look at Rick Perry for example.  The man has said numerous times that he would leave the more difficult problems facing his state, and our country, "in God's hands." Is that really the guy we want to have at the helm tasked with steering this great country through the troubles which lie just over the horizon?

Here are the questions that Keller sent to the candidates:

1. Is it fair to question presidential candidates about details of their faith? 
2. Is it fair to question candidates about controversial remarks made by their pastors, mentors, close associates or thinkers whose books they recommend? 
3. (a) Do you agree with those religious leaders who say that America is a “Christian nation” or “Judeo-Christian nation?” (b) What does that mean in practice? 
4. If you encounter a conflict between your faith and the Constitution and laws of the United States, how would you resolve it? Has that happened, in your experience? 
5. (a) Would you have any hesitation about appointing a Muslim to the federal bench? (b) What about an atheist? 
6. Are Mormons Christians, in your view? Should the fact that Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman are Mormons influence how we think of them as candidates? 
7. What do you think of the evangelical Christian movement known as Dominionism and the idea that Christians, and only Christians, should hold dominion over the secular institutions of the earth? 
8. (a) What is your attitude toward the theory of evolution? (b) Do you believe it should be taught in public schools? 
9. Do you believe it is proper for teachers to lead students in prayer in public schools?

I don't know about all of you but I would LOVE to hear the answers to these questions, ESPECIALLY from Bachmann and Perry, and of course Palin if she were ignorant enough to throw her hat into the ring.

Already the recent journalistic focus on Dominionism has started to freak the Evangelicals out a little, as evidenced by this complete denial of its existence by disgraced "Right Hand of God" Ralph Reed.

Hey, in my opinion if they are really secure in their faith, and proud of their religious convictions, they should be proud to discuss them in the public forum.

I mean it's not like they have something to hide, right?