Recently in Religion Category

Rachel Maddow provided an excellent analysis of the double standard at work in the media's reporting of religious issues.

Senator Barack Obama is compelled to speak about his pastor -- but Senator John McCain is the latest in a line of Republican candidates who are given a virtual free pass about the views of their religious supporters.

As Maddow explains:

Rich stuff, right? Very upsetting to the political applecart – Senator Obama wrote a piece on Huffington Post, which went up on Friday in which he called those remarks inflammatory and appalling - he said that he vehemently disagreed with and strongly condemned and categorically denounced and rejected outright; those words. Big controversy, right? Will Barack Obama be able to get past this controversy of his pastor, even with his vehement disagreement and strong condemnation and categorical denouncing and outright rejection so clearly stated? Regardless of all that, will he be able to get past this? Is this a fatal political blow to Barack Obama? Let me tell you this about the double standard. Not only has John McCain paid no political price for seeking and getting and being honored by the John Hagee endorsement. Not only has he yet to pay a political price for seeking and getting and being honored by the endorsement of the perhaps even more disgusting Rod Parsley – who McCain has campaigned with in Ohio – Rod Parsley, a pastor who I think not only is stomach-churning in his extremism, but who actually could generate enough of an international outcry that there could be national security implications of that endorsement for us as a country. Not only is McCain getting a free pass on both Hagee and Parsley but if you want to see the double standard at work here on religious issues?"

Click here to read more or listen to the segment of Maddow's radio show.

It looks like the Republicans think they have finally found a way to attack Obama. I wonder if they realize that by attacking Obama's pastor, they will (finally?) open the door to a frank discussion about the extreme religious views of some of the religious right's leaders.

After all, do you think this nation was founded, in part, to destroy Islam? No? Well, a man with whom John McCain campaigned, a man whom McCain actively courted for his endorsement, has revised the work of our founding generation to make such an argument. David Corn exposed what the Reverend Rod Parsley wrote in his 2005 book, Silent No More. As Maddow explained on her show, such sentiments have potential national security implications. Rev. Parsley writes:

I cannot tell you how important it is that we understand the true nature of Islam, that we see it for what it really is. In fact, I will tell you this: I do not believe our country can truly fulfill its divine purpose until we understand our historical conflict with Islam. I know that this statement sounds extreme, but I do not shrink from its implications. The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed, and I believe September 11, 2001, was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore.

How do you think that's going to play in the Middle East? You think some people may be upset about it? You think some of our soldiers may get killed as people there learn that an advisor and supporter of the Republican presidential nominee thinks this way?

I do. If we are going to focus on the extreme comments of religious leaders, let's make sure we expose what both sides are saying. These klieg lights need to point more directions than left.

Kevin Drum is right to have such an angry reaction to Mitt Romney's speech about religion.

To be clear, Mitt, no person should serve in elected office who claims that without religion, freedom isn't possible; that without religion, having a conscience isn't possible; and that without religion, understanding the law isn't possible.

Oh, and the incredible hypocrisy of a person demanding religious tolerance for himself just a few days after disqualifying all Muslims from holding cabinet positions really ranks off the charts.

Nice language sometimes can hide offensive thoughts. Today, however, was not one of those days for Mr. Romney.

You might think that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney might be more tolerant of other religions than other candidates...but you would be wrong. Matthew Yglesias comments on Romney's statement that he would not consider a Muslim for a cabinet position:

So because there are relatively few Muslims in the United States, Romney wouldn't consider a Muslim cabinet official? Meanwhile, before Madeleine Albright was Secretary of State, she was UN Ambassador. Her successor at the UN was Bill Richardson who went on to become Secretary of Energy. His successor was Richard Holbrooke who was widely viewed as a likely Secretary of State in a John Kerry administration and, again, is a very likely candidate for that job in a Hillary Clinton administration. John Negroponte had the job before becoming Director of National Intelligence. George HW Bush had the job before becoming CIA Director. But Romney's telling us that current UN Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad is too Muslim to be so much as considered for a cabinet post? Really? How repugnant.

And unconstitutional. Why do the Republicans (and the big-time pundits) keep refusing to recognize this clear Constitutional prohibition from Article VI:

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

Well, that is what Pat Robertson thinks. Air America Radio's Rachel Maddow has posted the audio clips of Robertson's appearance on This Week with George Stephanopoulos.

Just what does this man have to say before he is ignored by the mainstream media? Where is the line? How outrageous must he be?

Keith Olbermann blogs again about the SpongeBob SquarePants controversy that began when he accurately reported Focus on the Family Founder Dr. James Dobson's inaccurate charge that the cartoon character was part of a pro-homosexual agenda.

Not that there's anything wrong with that agenda. Civil rights, human rights, equality, and tolerance being virtues in this blogger's world.

Well, Focus on the Family continues to create an alternate reality to justify their hate-filled views. Olbermann rightly calls them on it:

Schneeberger finishes his piece with the hope that I’ll experience the same kind of epiphany he claims to have in 1997. “Let’s pray, if he ever does, that he comes up with the right answer - and not because it may lead to fairer reporting. But because it may lead to a redeemed life.”

Hey, guys, worry about yourselves. You’re spewing hate, while assuming that for some reason, God has chosen you and you alone in all of history to understand the mysteries of existence, when mankind’s existence is filled with ample evidence that nobody yet has been smart enough to discern an answer.

If there is a values debate to lose, liberals and progressives should not be losing it to these intolerant people.

Jonathan Turley understands why President George W. Bush often seeks to reverse former President Bill Clinton's policies.

He does not accept, however, the White House's attempts to reverse the work of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson.

Tony Blankley today writes an excellent column looking to the fatal impact of the Rev. Jerry Falwell's recent slur against Islam.

On CBS' 60 Minutes program a few weeks ago, the Rev. Falwell said:

"I think Mohammed was a terrorist. I read enough of the history of his life. He was a violent man, a man of war. Jesus set the example for love, as did Moses. And I think Mohammed set an opposite example."

Blankley explains why Falwell's declaration is a misreading of biblical history, hypocritical, and simply bad politics. He also notes:

President Bush has spent the last year desperately trying to limit our war on terror to the terrorists, and not letting it slide into a war of civilizations: Judeo-Christian vs. Muslim. That strikes me as a bloody good idea.

And just as many of us have pointedly observed how few Muslims came out to condemn Osama bin Laden after his murderous attacks on America, I feel obliged to point out how few American conservatives have come out to condemn Mr. Falwell's statement (not that their acts were morally equivalent, of course — one killed 3,000, the other insulted the religion of a fifth of mankind). As a longtime conservative and strong supporter of Mr. Bush's war on terrorism and Iraq, and as one who has fought on the same side of the political barricade as Mr. Falwell for the past quarter-century, permit me to proffer my condemnation.

This Washington Post editorial wonders why President Bush is silent as his allies in the Christian right defame Islam and its founder.

The same, however, cannot be said of some key leaders of the religious right in America who are counted among President Bush's closest political allies. And on their noxious mix of religious bigotry and anti-Muslim demagoguery, Mr. Bush's silence is deafening.

We have in mind several religious conservative leaders who count Mr. Bush as one of their own. There is the Rev. Franklin Graham, Billy Graham's son and successor and a participant in the president's inauguration, who has declared Islam a "very evil and wicked religion." And there is Christian Coalition founder and television evangelist Pat Robertson, who said that "to think that [Islam] is a peaceful religion is fraudulent." Mr. Robertson, in full attack mode himself, called the prophet Muhammad "an absolute wild-eyed fanatic . . . a robber and brigand . . . a killer." And, in an appearance on the CBS program "60 Minutes" to be broadcast tonight, the Rev. Jerry Falwell completes the demonization of a religion by smearing the prophet of Islam as "a terrorist."

Gail Buckley explains that lay Catholics want to be heard and have more power in church affairs. She also, in a rarity, finds herself in agreement with Pat Buchanan on one point.

"Catholic bishops who failed in their managerial and moral duty to protect innocent children should be sent to monasteries to do penance the rest of their lives," Patrick Buchanan said. For once, I agree with him.

Frida Ghitis writes: "Imagine being stoned to death for having sex outside of marriage." Nigeria's Amina Lawal faces precisely that fate after a ruling from an Islamic court.

Steve Friess is a Big Brother. He volunteers his time to help a young kid in his community.

Instead of being congratulated and supported, people like Friess are under attack. Because he is gay. Friess writes:

This month, Focus on the Family launched an all-out attack on local chapters of Big Brothers Big Sisters of America for allowing homosexuals to serve as mentors to fatherless boys and motherless girls. Chapters from Arizona to Philadelphia have received hundreds of calls and e-mails in protest.

James A. Haught reasonably argues that "Sept. 11 should be preserved as a global day of warning, cautioning humanity to beware of the ghastly mix of religion and hate."

The Boston Globe's Joan Vennochi writes:

"In a recent editorial, The Pilot, the official newspaper of the Boston Archdiocese, rebuked Governor Frank Keating of Oklahoma, the chairman of a national panel on the church's handling of clergy sexual abuse, saying Keating urged Catholics ''to commit a mortal sin'' by suggesting they boycott Sunday Mass. But the thinking Catholic cannot help but wonder, what is the bigger sin? Failing to attend Mass or failing to protect children?

How much longer will Cardinal Law be allowed to embarass Catholics anyway?

A former Jehovah's Witness elder was excommunicated last month because he established a forum to monitor alleged sexual abuses within the church. Four others have met with a similar fate for accusing the Jehovah's Witnesses of covering up other abuses.

Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich thinks that the U.S. Senate should impeach and remove from office the two judges who ruled the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional because it includes "under God."

Yes, we certainly have time for that political circus now. Not.

Howard Bashman on his How Appealing blog has the perfect reaction to it:

"This qualifies as the most idiotic reaction to that ruling that I have yet heard seriously proposed."