McCain's Religious Intolerance: Invoking "Judeo-Christian Values"

I don't think John McCain really understands that the United States was founded primarily on the ideals and principles of the Enlightenment, rather than simply "Judeo-Christian values.” Sure, such religious values played an indirect role in the founding of the country, but the fact remains that our founders were convinced that an official state religion should be avoided at all costs. Indeed, several of our founding fathers - including Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin - were actually deists rather than traditional Christians. More importantly, the First Amendment guarantees “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

McCain, who graduated at the bottom of his class in the Naval Academy, probably doesn't even comprehend such important constitutional principles as the separation of church and state. His confusion was certainly evident at Rick Warren's Saddleback Church in California last week, when he declared: "Our Judeo-Christian principles dictate that we do what we can to help people who are oppressed throughout the world."

The main problem with such language is his use of the collective “our,” which implies strongly that American values are synonymous with Judeo-Christian values. Of course, this was not the first time that McCain has used such exclusionary language, effectively rejecting the contributions and values of Americans that do not practice either Judaism or Christianity. As The Boston Globe observed recently, McCain uses such language often and in a variety of contexts. For instance, he recently praised small-town Americans by noting, "The Judeo-Christian values that they hold are the strength of America."

He has even used such language in reference to job training programs. Referring to laid-off workers this past February, he proclaimed, "We've got to educate and train these people. It is a Judeo-Christian values nation and it's an obligation we have and we are not doing it."

Even more disturbing, McCain appeared to embrace a religious test for President in comments he made last year in an interview with Beliefnet, hinting very strongly that non-Judeo-Christians need not apply. As he stated: "The number one issue people should make [in the] selection of the president of the United States is, 'Will this person carry on in the Judeo-Christian principled tradition that has made this nation the greatest experiment in the history of mankind?"



On a practical level, McCain’s theocratic comments have potentially serious repercussions not only for the civil liberties of Americans, but also for U.S. foreign policy and international relations. For example, in justifying the U.S.-led “preemptive” invasion of Iraq, McCain said the following in 2006:

"This just wasn't the elimination of a threat to Iraq - this was elimination of a threat to the West, part of this titanic struggle we are in between western Judeo-Christian values and principles and Islamic extremists."

He made similar comments earlier this year about Iran at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire. In reacting to a new intelligence report that had downplayed the threat of Iran's nuclear program, McCain quickly listed other reasons to be distrustful of the Iranians. As he stated: "And they sure don't share our Judeo-Christian values."

It’s really disturbing that McCain is identifying non-Judeo-Christian countries (with predominately Muslim populations) as problematic for the U.S, simply because of reputed differences in religious values. In effect, McCain is framing such countries as part of an ostensible “clash of religions,” as was noted in the Boston Globe article. Much to the chagrin of the Muslim world, McCain constantly conflates Islam in general with the war on terror. He has implicitly referred to Islam as an “alien” faith that is deemed to be threatening to the “Judeo-Christian” world.

Last week, as Christianity Today noted, McCain argued in favor of supporting Georgia in its conflict with Russia by noting twice approvingly that “Georgia is a Christian nation.” McCain seemed to be praising Georgia for adopting Christianity as its official religion, implying that predominately Muslim nations and breakaway provinces in the region - such as Chechnya and Azerbaijan – are not as deserving of U.S. support.

McCain's theocratic rhetoric is just one more reason why I am convinced that he is a very dangerous man who would likely start a war with Iran or other predominately Muslim countries for foolish, irrational reasons. Based on such imprudent and ignorant comments, McCain is not intellectually fit to be commander in chief.

John McCain's Computer Illiteracy

With Barack Obama, we likely have the most technologically-savvy candidate for President in the history of the country. He's revolutionized campaigning and fundraising with his web-based system. Google CEO Eric Schmidt and numerous other leaders in the technology sector have endorsed him. He has own iPod playlist. More importantly, Obama has an innovative series of policy proposals on technology issues. In contrast, John McCain is technologically illiterate. Significantly, his campaign's web page barely even mentions technology policy.



By his own admission, John McCain is completely dependent on his wife for e-mail correspondence and other forms of computer-mediated communication. He doesn’t even own a computer, as he admits when questioned in the following video:



Why is it important that McCain lacks any basic knowledge when it comes to information technology? With countless thousands of business transactions taking place every second on the web, McCain’s technological illiteracy could have potentially serious repercussions for decisions concerning economic and technology policies if he somehow becomes President (heaven forbid). With the constant threat of technological terrorism, it’s also a matter of national security. McCain’s cyberspace ignorance and apparent technophobia is not only embarrassing, it’s inexcusable for anyone working in government not to know how to use the Internet. Do we really need a modern-day Luddite in the Oval Office?

In fact, as the following video observes, what happens at 3 a.m. in the White House if President McCain is awakened from his slumber and told that he needs to read a vital e-mail message?

The Idiocy of John McCain

Over the past few weeks, I’ve grown increasingly weary of John McCain’s negative and often dishonest attacks on Barack Obama. Among other things, McCain has often accused Obama of lacking “the knowledge and judgment” to be President. This past week’s ad depicting Obama as a vacuous celebrity akin to Britney Spears or Paris Hilton is the most recent example of such sophomoric absurdity coming from the McCain campaign. In reality, Obama is one of the brightest and most knowledgeable candidates for President to come down the pike in decades.

But in this blog I want to focus on McCain, not Obama. It’s high time that McCain is revealed as the one who is truly ignorant and uninformed on a wide range of issues. Despite his vaunted “experience,” it is painfully obvious that McCain is not only unknowledgeable about many important domestic and international issues facing the country, but lacks even a rudimentary understanding of the economy and foreign affairs.

Certainly, all candidates make occasional gaffes in their speeches and press conferences. But in contrast to most politicians, McCain never seems to learn from his misstatements. Instead, he repeats the same erroneous comments over and over again.

It’s high time to list the Top Ten Reasons why John McCain is an idiot:

1. By his own admission, McCain “barely passed” his coursework in college. He also finished at the very bottom of his class in the U.S. naval academy. He was ranked 894th of 899 among academy graduates in the class of 1958. Can the guy even read and write? I wonder sometimes.

2. One thing we know for sure is that McCain has never really used the Internet and lacks any basic knowledge when it comes to information technology. He revealed as much at last year’s Republican YouTube debate. You know, even my elderly mother has surfed the web and used e-mail. McCain’s Internet ignorance and technophobia is not only embarrassing, it’s inexcusable for anyone working in government to not know how to use the Internet. Do we really need a modern-day Luddite in the Oval Office?

3. Maybe if McCain could surf the web he might have discovered that Czechoslovakia no longer exists. He has mentioned this “country” several times in recent weeks, even after the media reminded him that the “Velvet Divorce” of 1993 resulted in the end of Czechoslovakia. Of course, his inability to remember such “details” is readily apparent. Ironically, even George W. Bush caught McCain making the same mistake in a 2000 Republican presidential debate. You know it’s pretty bad when Bush’s knowledge of world affairs apparently exceeds that of McCain. I doubt that even Bush believes that Iraq and Pakistan share a border, or that Vladimir Putin is the President of Germany, as McCain has stated recently.



4. Speaking of Bush, McCain was a zealous supporter of the 2003 invasion of Iraq – the most idiotic foreign policy decision in recent American history. By his own admission at a Republican presidential debate in June 2007, McCain voted to authorize the U.S. military invasion of Iraq without even glancing at the formal National Intelligence Estimate. If he had read the report he might have discovered that the intelligence community was divided over whether or not Saddam was developing WMDs. Once again I ask: Can McCain even read?

5. Apparently, McCain never anticipated any kind of insurgency in Iraq. As he famously said at the time of the 2003 invasion, the U.S. military will be “greeted as liberators.” Of course, in recent months McCain has repeatedly confused the Shiites with the Sunnis. His favorite lap dog, Joe Lieberman, had to correct him on the ground in Iraq by whispering the facts into his ear. But then McCain continued to confuse the two sects in the days that followed, even noting erroneously on a couple of different occasions that Iran (which is Shiite-dominated) was supporting (Sunni) al-Qaida in Iraq.

6. McCain’s confusion about Iraq has also been apparent in his claim that the surge of U.S. troops happened before the Sunni (Anbar) Awakening. But as all military experts acknowledge, the Awakening preceded the surge by several months, thus contributing to the current decline in sectarian violence. Despite such facts, McCain’s has so far refused to acknowledge his mistake about the war’s chronology. Not only is he idiotic, but also apparently too stubborn to admit any factual errors.

7. McCain’s ignorance about the Middle East is compounded by his juvenile sense of humor – which could be quite dangerous as President. Echoing Beavis and Butthead, McCain responded gleefully about the prospect of “bombing” another country. Asked at town hall meeting in April 2007 if there was a plan to attack Iran, McCain began his answer by changing the words to a classic Beach Boys' song. As he stated to the crowd, "You know that old Beach Boys song, Bomb Iran?” He then preceded to sing, "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran." Can someone please say “dumb ass diplomacy?” Is this sophomoric behavior really what we want to see in a possible commander-in-chief?

8. For months, McCain has been touting his support of a “gas tax holiday” for the summer months. This particular policy has been roundly criticized by virtually all economists and energy experts as fallacious and ill conceived. But McCain – out of stubborn ignorance or blissful dementia – has refused to abandon this foolhardy initiative.

9. Of course, by his own admission, McCain doesn’t know much about the economy. As he told the Wall Street Journal in November 2007: “I'm going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated.” Judging from McCain’s previous dismal attempts at being “educated” while in college, I don’t have high hopes that his knowledge on economic issues will improve in the Oval Office.

10. When it comes to the economy, McCain never seems to miss an opportunity to tout the Bush tax cuts that have disproportionately benefited the very wealthy. Despite such tax cuts having fueled the largest federal deficits in American history, McCain blithely ignores such facts. Out of ignorance, dementia, or both, McCain appears to be totally unaware of the economic damage such uncontrolled tax expenditures have caused.



Well, I’m sure there are many other reasons that could be cited as proof of McCain’s ignorance, idiocy, and ineptitude. Talk about vacuous – the guy reminds me of Grandpa Simpson, or maybe a geriatric version of Beavis from MTV. Let’s just hope that Americans are wise enough to realize that McCain is indeed the latest American Idiot to hit the national political scene. Hmmm…I wonder if McCain is considering Dan Quayle as a possible running mate?

Defending the Iowa Caucuses

At the Democratic Rules Committee meeting on Saturday, Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich) once again justified his state’s decision to violate party rules and move up the date of its primary by blaming Iowa and New Hampshire. He criticized the preeminent role of the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary in the quadrennial presidential election process, arguing, "no state should have the right to go first" during every campaign season.

Besides the fact that Iowa and New Hampshire had absolutely nothing to do with Michigan’s myopic ill-advised decision to break party rules, I believe that it is important to defend the traditional role of these first-in-the-nation presidential selection events. In particular, I want to defend Iowa’s longstanding position (since 1972) as the opening caucus state.

As a resident of Iowa for the past thirteen years, I have grown to really appreciate the special role that my adopted state plays in the presidential nomination process. As a relatively small state, it is possible for presidential candidates to visit virtually every town and meet residents face to face. Iowans are able to gather not only in large town-hall style settings to hear from the candidates, but also in medium size and small venues too.

It is truly an incredibly valuable experience for everyday folks from the heartland to converse with big-time politicos one-on-one. This kind of citizen-based empirical assessment of presidential candidates would be virtually impossible to achieve in huge states such as Michigan and Florida.

Rather than depending on the national media and endless TV commercials for sizing up the candidates, we are able to make an intelligent determination based on direct conversations and experience at the grassroots level. Large numbers of Iowans in both parties take this responsibility very seriously and begin familiarizing themselves with the candidates early in the process as a result.

Rather than simply anointing the candidate with the most name recognition (as is often the case in larger states with huge numbers of under-informed voters), Iowans often gravitate to new or even virtually unknown candidates. This is an extremely important function since our state in effect raises the national profile of candidates who otherwise might have gone unnoticed due to a lack of name recognition.

It’s been often said that Iowa lacks diversity and is therefore not a good barometer for presidential strengths and weaknesses. In pure ethnic/racial terms this is largely true, though the state’s population of Hispanics has actually more than doubled in the past decade or so.

Nonetheless, Iowa has a diverse population in many other respects. The state is almost evenly divided between Catholics and Protestants, for instance. The state is largely rural and yet also has numerous urban and suburban areas. In most communities, there is a great deal of social class differentiation that includes farmers, factory workers, middle-class professionals, college students, etc. Most importantly, Iowa is almost evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans, boding well for strong activist participation in both party caucuses.

The Iowa caucuses are in many respects anti-establishment; i.e., not simply ratifying the presumed picks of the national party apparatus. Often bucking conventional wisdom, Iowans in both parties tend to reject the initial media darlings and assorted incumbent-style front-runners. Rather, we tend to gravitate towards the best and the brightest (and most interesting) among the candidates.

Winning in the Iowa caucuses certainly does not guarantee anything – other than the fact that new names may be taken more seriously by the national press corps and electorate in succeeding presidential nominating contests around the country.

As an Obama supporter for well over a year, I was particularly proud of my fellow Democrats in the Iowa caucuses. Without Iowa as a springboard to major national recognition, Obama would have had a much more difficult time in achieving the nomination. The enthusiasm for Obama at the caucuses was incredible and certainly was pivotal in breaking the perceived lock on the nomination held previously by Hillary Clinton.

Iowa did not guarantee that Obama would win the nomination but rather assured that the national contest would indeed become competitive and not simply a coronation. Entrenched incumbents such as Senator Levin naturally fear such grassroots power, which is all the more reason to maintain Iowa’s important role in this process.

Hillary's Remarks about "Assassination"

I've been thinking a lot lately about Senator Hillary Clinton's unfortunate remarks last week alluding to the assassination of Bobby Kennedy in 1968.  She seemed to be implying that she was remaining in the Democratic race just in case someone - presumably Barrack Obama - gets assassinated.  I've got to say that these remarks were really over the top and incredibly offensive.  What's worse is that she later offered only a tepid half-apology for her remarks to the Kennedy family, but failed to mention the damage such remarks had on the current campaign or Senator Obama.  

What is wrong with Hillary anyway?  Is she so detached from the reality of possible assassination attempts on Obama or even on her own life that she would mention such a disturbing scenario? Is she really so incredibly clueless about the potential danger in making such references in normal political discourse? Hasn't she heard about the numerous comparisons made between Obama and Bobby Kennedy, not to mention John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King? In making such remarks, she really has reached a new low in her campaign that is very disturbing. 

Here's a commentary from Keith Olbbermann that expresses the outrage about these comments that many of us are feeling.

Same-Sex Marriage: As Goes California, So Goes the Nation?

The California Supreme Court delivered a groundbreaking decision this morning:  State law banning same sex marriage is clearly unconstitutional.  To really understand this issue it is first important to recognize that marriage is not an "unchanging institution" as many conservatives such as George W. Bush and John McCain have erroneously alleged. In reality, marriage has undergone many important social and legal changes over the years.

For example, marriage used to be completely male-dominated and patriarchal, with men even permitted to beat their wives in some localities.  Women had no real legal rights in marriage for centuries with property rights often denied them upon the death of their husband or in divorce proceedings. By the way, people often quoted from the Bible to defend such sexist arrangements and laws.

Speaking of divorce, that's another example of how marriage rights have changed over time. No-fault divorce laws are a recent legal innovation that have dramatically altered marriage as an institution; abused spouses (both female and male) are now able to exit their marriage much easier as a result.

Marriage has also changed in laws governing rape. Until the 1970s, most states did not have any laws protecting women (or men for that matter) from rape by their spouses. All of these changes in marriage went up against the conservative status quo, but nonetheless prevailed.

Probably the most important legal precedent in this regard is how a large number of states used to have anti-miscegenation laws that prevented people from marrying someone of a different race.

It was not until 1967, in the case of Loving v. Virginia, that the US Supreme Court struck down such laws that banned interracial marriage. The Court used the equal protection clause in support of their decision. Public opinion polls taken at the time found that upwards of 90 percent of the general public (not just in the South) disagreed with the Supreme Court and supported bans on interracial marriage. Many so-called "Christians" - especially in the South - quoted from the Bible to defend their stance opposing mixed-race marriage. Fortunately, the Supreme Court did not simply affirm what was popular and reputedly "Christian;" instead, they took a stand to expand the definition of marriage to include a broader number of people.

Our current debate is the latest battle in the progressive evolution of marriage as a legal institution. It is not really an issue of gay rights; rather, it is an issue of human rights.

It is important to note that there are over ONE THOUSAND SPECIAL LEGAL RIGHTS AND BENEFITS accorded to married couples in the U.S. (e.g., inheritance, joint income tax returns, disability benefits, worker's compensation, spousal or child support, insurance benefits, medical leave, bereavement leave, child custody, Social Security and other retirement benefits, power of attorney, hospital visitation, divorce, etc.)

For this reason, it is high time to grant equal marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples nationwide. This is an issue that relates directly to the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. Though marriage has religious connotations, it is primarily a legal institution that licenses and codifies relationships and the rights that go with them. To deny same-sex couples equal marital rights is contrary to basic liberty. That's what America is really supposed to be about: liberty for all; rather than some mindless conformity based on homophobic bigotry. 

The California Supreme Court decision is another important step in the historic and ongoing expansion of civil and human rights in the U.S.   Hopefully, as goes California, so goes the nation.

 

The New McCarthyism: Unfair Allegations of "Guilt by Association" Used Against Obama

 By David Drissel

McCarthyism has made an unexpected comeback in the guise of repeated questions ad nauseum about Barrack Obama’s “patriotism” and related “guilt by association” with various figures such as his ex-pastor Reverend Jeremiah Wright and former Weather Underground member, William Ayers.  

For weeks, we’ve heard this kind of paranoid chauvinistic drivel especially from the conservative media – Sean Hannity of Fox News in particular.  But at the last debate, sponsored by ABC News, such neo-McCarthy-style tactics reached a new low in the guise of moderators Charley Gibson and George Stephanopoulos.   

The entire first half of the debate revolved around whether or not Obama was sufficiently patriotic and “loved America” as much or more than other people such as his former pastor.  Nothing Obama said seemed to be enough to satisfy the inquisitorial moderators. 

Sadly, Hillary Clinton only piled on Obama even more, taking her extremist-cues from former Clinton Administration official-turned-TV “journalist” – Stephanopoulos.   She then decided to bring up an even more distant secondary association - Louis Farrakhan – who she claimed was mentioned in Obama’s church bulletin!  Wow, talk about McCarthy-style “guilt by association” of the worst kind.

You know, this has got to be the most disgusting display of “political” discourse I’ve ever seen in my life.  These New McCarthyites –including Hillary Clinton - can’t seem to get enough of such non-issues.    Since when does whether or not one wears a flag-pin matter?  Patriotism is in the heart, not on the sleeve (or lapel).    Besides, I didn’t see Hillary wearing a flag-pin.  Why did the “unbiased” moderators not ask a question about her patriotism too?

Since when does a person’s ex-pastor become newsworthy?  So what if Obama went to this church for twenty years?  All of the objectionable comments (five minutes worth at most) made by Wright which played endlessly on cable TV news, were videotaped within the past six or seven years.  That was the period in which Obama was not even around Chicago all that much.   Besides, Obama clearly stated that he disagreed with Wright’s objectionable comments and was not in the church at the time when those comments were made.  That should have been the end of the story, but Fox’s Hannity and now ABC News’ resident neo-McCarthyites just wanted to keep the story alive for as long as possible.

This whole line of “debate” about William Ayers was even worse and really brought politics to a new chauvinistic low.  So what if Obama served on the same board with this guy? You know, I’ve served on boards with all kinds of people in my life.  Am I supposed to run a background check on everyone in which I come into contact?  This guy Ayers was never even convicted of anything, for crying out loud.  This is the worst kind of McCarthy-style tactics: To insinuate or even say flatly that a person who has met an “undesirable” (fill in the blank) is somehow “corrupted” or “infected” by that association.   

It’s instructive to remember that the critics of Dr. Martin Luther King attempted the use very similar McCarthy-style tactics to destroy him.  They accused of him of being a “communist” (or “pinko”) simply because he had associated with a few communists in the civil rights movement.  Of course, that was a ridiculous charge.  King was never a communist or communist sympathizer.  But just because he had brief associations with a few communists, the reactionary far-right race-baiting crowd automatically deemed him suspect of “anti-Americanism.”

Personally, I’m a whole lot more concerned about Presidential candidates who imagine and apparently lie about surviving “sniper fire” when they actually haven’t.  Do we really want someone to be our commander in chief that can’t tell fantasy from reality on the battlefield?  It makes one wonder what other kind of military attacks or maneuvers that Hillary might “imagine” if she somehow scratches her way back into the White House.

Hillary’s increasingly negative fear-mongering attacks on Obama are right out of the Republican playbook once again.  You know, I actually used to like and respect Hillary.  But now I see her as just so incredibly desperate to win that’s she’s willing to resort to McCarthy-style tactics and destroy the Democratic Party’s chances to win in the general election. 

It’s time to return to the issues that really matter to average Americans.  Let’s hope that Hillary ends her neo-McCarthyite campaign soon, before she completely ruins the Democratic party’s chances in the fall.