Anti-Gay Manhattan Declaration Author, Watergate Felon, Chuck Colson Dead at 80

I know it's not supposed to be good form to speak ill of the dead, but over his career both in the Nixon White House and later as a leading anti-gay homophobe and self-styled right wing extremist, Chuck Colson - at least in my view - perpetrated much evil.  He certainly did all in his power to denigrate LGBT citizens and to push a theocratic agenda that made a mockery of the U. S. Constitution's promise of religious freedom for all citizens.  The so-called Christianist Manhattan Declaration is but one of many examples of Colson seeking to subvert the Constitution and the nation's civil laws while demanding special rights for Christianists.  Colson had best hope that he isn't judged as he judged others or else his life in the hereafter may be far different that what he expected.  The New Civil Rights Movement looks at Colson's foul legacy.  Here are some highlights:

Chuck Colson, the virulently anti-gay theocrat, Evangelical Christian Prison Fellowship founder, Watergate felon, and Manhattan Declaration co-author, died today at the age of 80, after a brain hemorrhage earlier this month. President Richard M. Nixon’s self-described “hatchet man,” Colson — who turned to religion just before he began serving a prison sentence as one of the Watergate Seven — had the reputation of a “dirty tricks” man, but later became highly-regarded within the ranks of the radical religious right. Colson in recent years was a chief religious flag waver falsely claiming the rights of Christians are being compromised.

 

Colson co-authored the Manhattan Declaration with National Organization For Marriage (NOM) founder Robert P. George, whom Colson routinely praised.

The Los Angeles Times described Colson’s Manhattan Declaration as incautious, “apocalyptic,” “disingenuous,” “irresponsible and dangerous,” and chastised its “Christian religious leaders who, even as they insist on their right to shape the nation’s laws, are reserving the right to violate them.” The Times also labeled the Declaration’s attack on same-sex marriage as a “canard,”.   .   .   .  

Colson repeatedly attacked same-sex marriage and homosexuality. He wrongly stated “homosexual behavior” is more “dangerous than smoking, it lowers the life expectancy dramatically.” Colson also falsely stated that legalizing same-sex marriage was “sanctioning behavior known to be dangerous.” And, again falsely, stated that gays and lesbians “don’t want marriage; they want their sexual choices affirmed as normal and moral.”

And as late as last year, despite years of research to the contrary, Colson was publicly advocating that homosexuality was both a choice and avoidable if parents “properly” raised their children.

Author Jeff Sharlet, who has researched and written extensively on the radical religious right, upon learning of Colson’s passing, today wrote via Twitter: Chuck Colson was a cruel, vain, and arrogant man in all phases of his life, a dissembler & a hater to the end. RIP.

Frankly, I find it difficult not to believe that the world is a better place now that Colson has left it.  From all I have read on Colson, I believe Jeff Sharlet summed it up well.  Yes, that's harsh, but in the end, I believe the truth.  Like so many in the Christian Right, Colson should be best known for the hate, intolerance and bigotry that were his daily stock in trade.

The Gurus of the Religious Right Who Wrecked the Republican Party

I've written about Frank Schaeffer before. His father was in many ways a founder of the far right Christianist movement that plagues the nation today and that seeks to merge far right religious belief with the civil laws in order to create a Christianist theocracy. Along the way Schaeffer recognized the danger and hypocrisy of the Christianist movement and now actively writes and speaks out to stop its agenda. But given his back ground, his insights and knowledge are most instructive. In a post on his blog he looks at the architects behind today's extremist controlled Republican Party. Here are some highlights:

Romney is a fake religious right "conservative." But the fact that he has to pretend to be to the right of the Pope on "social issues" tells us all we need to know about the intellectual climate inside today's Republican Party.

How did the Republicans get to be this way? Reading and watching media coverage of the 2012 elections you'd never learn the answer. That is because the media seem to have never heard of the intellectuals who fed the movement on far right religious hysteria.

When Rick Santorum - who is the real thing when it comes to authentic hate-driven misogynistic religious delusion -- talks about how the idea of the separation of church and state, as articulated by President Kennedy, made him want to "throw up," he was channeling the late Richard John Neuhaus. He even uses Neuhaus' pet catch phrase "the naked public square" to describe religion being "driven" from public life by "radical secularists" intent on using colleges to brainwash kids into pro-abortion, gay-hugging liberalism.

When Gingrich, Romney and Santorum defined President Obama's reasonable attempt to make insurance companies pay for women's access to contraception as being "anti-religious" and "anti-religious freedom" they were channeling Professor Robert George of Princeton University, Charles Colson, and my late father Francis Schaeffer

[R]eading media commentaries and watching the talking heads on TV you would never know that the radical right's takeover of the Republican Party has its roots in the work and writing of a few men and women who became the enablers of a radical religious ideology that they made respectable in far right circles. You'd also never know that places like Princeton University are providing intellectual "respectability" to radical far right theocrats like Robert George or that "mainstream" evangelicals like the editors of Christianity Today magazine regard far right homophobe Colson as a hero.

George's brainchild: the "Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience" was published in 2009 as an anti-Obama manifesto, and many Evangelical leaders signed on. It was written as a direct reaction to the Obama Presidency. It was a trap that launched a fishing expedition to find any issue that might gain traction with which to beat the President in 2012. That could have been gay rights, or stem cell research. It turned out to be contraception.

In case you've never heard of George, he's been a one-man "brain trust" for the Religious Right and the Far Right of the Republican Party as well as for the ultraconservative wing of the Roman Catholic Church.

George's trap for the President, the "Manhattan Declaration" was instantly signed by more than 150 American "mainstream" (mostly Evangelical) conservative religious leaders. They joined to "affirm support for traditional marriage" and to advocate civil disobedience against laws contradicting the signers' religious beliefs about marriage and/or the "life issues." The drafting committee included Evangelical Far Right leader Charles Colson.

There are a number of leading American extremist "conservative" Roman Catholics, like Professor George, who are part of a strange, informal, anti-contraceptive, anti-abortion alliance that Santorum has drawn his ideas from

The groups Kreeft, Colson and Neuhaus had in mind to "bring together" were alienated Evangelicals, Orthodox Jews and conservative Roman Catholics, wallowing in their sense of victimhood, to which Kreeft added Muslims. Of course the ultra-conservative Kreeft and extremist Neuhaus were against contraception and equated it with abortion. Thus the logic of their argument was that of my fathers' too: the United States Government was enabling murder, was disparaged as a "regime" that needed to be overthrown.

To the extent that Santorum and the rest of the Republican field this year have alienated most Americans we can thank the "intellectual" enablers of off-the-wall right wing radicalism. Just how crazy are these people? How radical are they?

To plumb the depths of the tortured "reasoning" behind the Roman Catholic Bishop's anti-contraception movement, consider the writing of Roman Catholic philosopher Elizabeth Anscombe. She's a heroine to today's leading conservative Roman Catholics including to Cardinal Dolan (who is close to Robert George and Colson) and the Vatican. She wrote passionately in defense of the papal prohibition of contraception: . . . intercourse within marriage is a graver offence against chastity than is straightforward fornication or adultery."

And now with Romney (the fake) Santorum (the true believer) and Gingrich (the inscrutably weird) doing all but quoting these religious leaders openly and verbatim, and with the ultra-conservative Roman Catholic bishops parroting their mentor Robert George in anti-Obama rhetoric and with Romney having to pretend that he agrees... the Republican Party is now firmly in the hands of people like George who believe that a madwoman like Anscombe was brave and right to describe contraception as: "contraceptive intercourse within marriage is a graver offence against chastity than is straightforward fornication or adultery." And George and Colson and company are still at it trying to keep the myth alive that President Obama is anti-religion.

Yes, what Schaeffer describes is insane and bizarre, but that is the true face of today's Republican Party and its Christianist/Tea Party base. We are not talking about normal or sane people.

GOP Dominionists Play the Victim Card

I guess we should have seen it coming given the fact that Christianists always love to depict themselves as victims. Now in a Washington Post column Michael Gerson - who served as President George W. Bush's chief speechwriter from 2001 until June 2006 and once wrote as a ghost writer for Chuck Colson - whines about "an unholy war on the Tea Party" and claims that allegations that Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Sarah Palin are unfounded. Indeed, Gerson would label those who want religion out of politics as the ones who are intolerant. What Gerson ignores is the fact that the U.S. Constitution promises freedom of religion to ALL citizens. That means no one group gets to imposes its beliefs on everyone else. It's a concept that the Christianists and Dominionist refuse to accept. Here's a sampling of Gerson's disingenuous bullshit:

Now the heroes of the Tea Party movement, it turns out, are also closet theocrats. “If you want to understand Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry,” argues Michelle Goldberg in Newsweek/Daily Beast, “understanding Dominionism isn’t optional.” A recent New Yorker profile by Ryan Lizza contends that Bachmann has been influenced by a variety of theocratic thinkers who have preached Christian holy war.

As befits a shadowy religious sect, its followers go under a variety of names: Reconstructionists. Theonomists. The New Apostolic Reformation. Republicans. All apparently share a belief, in Goldberg’s words, that “Christians have a God-given right to rule all earthly institutions.”

The Dominionist goal is the imposition of a Christian version of sharia law in which adulterers, homosexuals and perhaps recalcitrant children would be subject to capital punishment. It is enough to spoil the sleep of any New Yorker subscriber. But there is a problem: Dominionism, though possessing cosmic ambitions, is a movement that could fit in a phone booth. The followers of R.J. Rushdoony produce more books than converts.

Bachmann is prone to Tea Party overstatement and religious-right cliches. She opened herself to criticism by recommending a book that features Southern Civil War revisionism. But there is no evidence from the careers of Bachmann or Perry that they wish to turn America into a theocratic prison camp. If this kind of attack sounds familiar, it should.

In the case of Dominionism, paranoia is fed by a certain view of church-state relations — a deep discomfort with any religious influence in politics: Even if most evangelicals are not plotting the reconstruction of Cromwell’s Commonwealth, they nevertheless want to impose their sectarian views on secular institutions. It is a common argument among secular liberals that the application of any religiously informed moral reasoning in politics is a kind of soft theocracy. Dominionism is merely its local extension.

Such secularism shows a remarkable lack of self-consciousness. Like any ideology, this one has philosophic roots that are subject to argument. Yet secularists often assume their view is the definition of neutrality and thus deserves a privileged public place. The argument that religion is fundamentally illiberal thus provides an excuse to treat it illiberally. Pluralism is defined as the silencing of religious people. Thin charges of Dominionism are just another attempt to discredit opponents rather than answer them. . .

As the saying goes, you are known by the company you keep and Gerson, Bachmann, Perry, and Palin have all kept some pretty nasty company who make it 100% clear that their goal is to force their religious views on the nation. The fact that they are being called out by those who want to maintain religious freedom for ALL is the result of their own acts, statements and associations. They're not victims of anything but the consequences of their own actions.

Andrew Sullivan: Breivik Is A Living Definition Of Christianism

Given my previous post on Maggie Gallagher's statements - similar statements by convicted felon Chuck Colson who like Gallagher has latched onto the professional Christian financial gravy train can be found here in the Christian Post - comments Andrew Sullivan made on his blog yesterday are very appropriate because the mindset he describes in Norway's mass murder is sadly much the same as the Christianists in this country. The only difference is that they have not resorted to murder and violence on a large scale - at least not yet. But they and their anti-Muslim allies are the ones responsible for creating an atmosphere and a world view fueled by hate that made the step to murder and violence seem the next logical step to someone like Breivik. And frighteningly, there are likely others out in society who may follow his example. Here are excerpts from Andrew's post:
*
I coined the term "Christianism" many moons ago to defend Christianity and the gospels from their political co-opters. And I think it's indispensable in understanding the motivations of the terrorist, Anders Breivik. . . .
*
One of the core messages of Christianity is a rejection of worldly power. The core message of Christianism is, in stark contrast, the desperate need to control all the levers of political power to control or guide the lives of others.
*
But Christianist? Breivik's picture should accompany the term in any dictionary. Christianism is all about power over others, and it has been fueled in the last decade by its mirror image, Islamism, and motivated to fury by hatred of what it sees as is true enemy, liberalism. Both Islamism and Christianism, to my mind, do not spring from real religious faith; they spring from neurosis caused by lack of faith. They are the choices of those who are panicked by the complexity and choices of modernity into a fanatical embrace of a simplistic parody of religion in order to attack what they see as their cultural and social enemies. They are not about genuine faith; they are about the instrumentality of faith as a political bludgeon.
*
It is his fear of his lack of real faith that propels him to pragmatically embrace the psychological structure of religion to murder his cultural enemies, to reify "Europe" or "Christendom" or "the Church" in order to defend them and give some meaning to his life.
*
Like all such weaklings in the face of modernity, he is obsessed with sexual control of others and the sexual repression of oneself. He literally embraces a return to the mythic model of the 1950s, in which women remain at home, gays belong in the closet, and white Christians are the only kinds of Americans there are. He is obsessed with demography and reads at times like a parody of Mark Steyn, brooding over the out-breeding infidels. He is still angry at Betty Friedan.
*
A pseudo-believer, he nonetheless favors the arch-authoritarianism of the Old Catholicism rather than contemporary Protestantism (just like the atheist neocons).
*
My point is this: this was about as far from an act of meaningless violence as you can get. It is an explicitly articulated, carefully argued conclusion from a mishmash of every current far right platitude out there. Breivik does not merely claim influence by someone like Robert Spencer, he quotes him and so many others at great length as part of his manifesto! It's a pastiche of vast tracts of the far right blogosphere.
*
[I]t does seem to me to prove beyond any doubt that Christianism is indeed a phenomenon in its own right, and that its evolution into neo-fascist violence, like Islamism's embrace of neo-fascist violence, is now something that cannot be denied.
*
If you think that contains no lessons for the United States, you might want to open your eyes a little more widely.

Chuck Colson Seeks to Spread His Toxic Version of Christianity

Given Chuck Colson's history, I've always questioned whether or not he had a "religious conversion" or merely latched on to Christianity as a ruse to restore his reputation and make a good living in his post penitentiary days. Where else other than in a so-called "ministy" can a convicted felon find an easy route to the good life financially and find gullible sheep to give him money freely (I've seen ads on Christian sites about "incorporation one's ministy for $99). Colson strikes me like as so many in the "ex-gay" industry - largely unemployable psychologically disturbed drug users and alcoholics who found Jesus as a route to financial susccess and respectability - at least among the simpleton set. The Washington Post has a piece that looks at Colson's effort to "metastasize" society with his intolerant and exclusionary for of Christianity. Ironically, metastasize is the correct word given that Colson and his followers are, in my view, a form of cancer on society. One has to wonder about the mental health of anyone who would want to be one of Colson's "centurions." I sincerely hope that his efforts fail. We clearly do not need more members of the Christian Taliban in this nation. Here are highlights from the Post article:
*
Charles Colson assembles the newest members of his Christian army at a Loudoun County convention hall on a winter Saturday. . . . . They’ve spent the year — and as much as $4,000 — reading the books Colson reads, watching the movies he watches, praying the way he prays. It’s all part of an ambitious effort by Colson to replicate his spiritual DNA and ensure that his vision of Christianity doesn’t die when he does.
*
“This is the time for us to metastasize and impact society!” the gravelly-voiced former Nixon aide tells his rapt audience. “And this is a really, really urgent hour.” . . . . They are called Centurions, a name that conjures battle-hardened Roman soldiers. They number 640, and their marching orders from their commander are clear — to expand Christ’s kingdom. “What this country needs,” Colson declares, “is a movement.”
*
Colson, who lives in Florida full time after years of dividing his time between the Sunshine State and Northern Virginia, hasn’t lost his taste for politics. He works against measures to legalize gay marriage and served as an informal adviser to former George W. Bush aide Karl Rove. . . . . [He] is treated like a rock star at Christian events.
*
“The point was to get more people to be like Chuck,” says Chip Mahon, a retired financial services executive who sits on the board of BreakPoint, the umbrella group for Colson’s various ministries, including the Centurions, which began in 2004.
*
Regardless of how traditional evangelicals describe themselves, they are facing some discouraging trends. Polls show that young evangelicals are more concerned about poverty and environmentalism than same-sex marriage or abortion and other “sanctity of life” issues. A few months ago, Apple booted an iPhone app for a conservative Christian manifesto that Colson co-wrote called the Manhattan Declaration because the company deemed the document’s opposition to gay marriage and other “immoral sexual partnerships” to be offensive. Just one of the original signers was under 40.
*
Centurions are required to create a three-year ministry plan. Most involve grass-roots evangelizing to work colleagues, neighbors or people at church who think they know Christianity but don’t.
*
I find Colson and his followers frightening. Should they ever succeed on a large scale, this nation will be a scary place for anyone who doesn't fit the Christianist mode. At the risk of being called horrible, I see the only positive note in all of this is the fact that at 79, Colson's days of disseminating poison may be limited.

Are These Pictures of the Same Man?

I generally check out Bob Felton's blog, Civil Commotion every day. Bob's an amazing source on some of the idiocy and hypocrisy of the Christianists and similar religious nutcases and frequently makes me look religion friendly. One thing that I have noted is that supposed Christian groups seem to attract a lot of crooks and con men who either gravitate to religion while in prison - convicted Watergate felon Chuck Colson is a good example - so that they can have a lucrative lifestyle while fleecing the simple and ignorant. Others see the monetary opportunity from the get go and prey upon those who ought to know better by wrapping themselves in religion. In this area, disbarred attorney and recently convicted on 39 counts Troy Titus is a prime example. Bob has found this interesting issue in respect to the Baptist missionary kidnapper story coming out of Haiti:
*
The man on the left is Torres Orellana, sought by Interpol for child trafficking. The man on the right is Jorge Puello, who has represented the Baptist missionaries arrested in Haiti on allegations of kidnapping and child trafficking. Puello claims to be a lawyer, licensed in the Dominican Republic, but that country has no record of him.
*
The Americans’ families say that the missionaries knew nothing of Puello’s possibly illicit background, that he appeared to them to be no more than a Good Samaritan trying to help:
*
Jorge Puello was not known to the missionaries’ church group before their arrest for trying to take 33 children out of Haiti, and members failed to check his background, Sean Lankford, the relative who dealt most closely with him, said Saturday.
*
Somehow I doubt that Orellana-Puello will be the last crook to resort to helping "good religious people" after reinventing themselves to hide a criminal past.

Los Angeles Times Condemns The Manhattan Declaration

Fortunately, a number of major media outlets have condemned the so-called "Manhattan Declaration" - authored in part by convicted Watergate felon Chuck Colson (pictured at right) which among other things urges far right Christianists to engage in civil disobedience and ignore laws that run contrary to Christianist bigotry. As regular readers know, I view far right Christianist extremist - a term that increasingly includes the U.S. leadership of the Catholic Church - to constitute a danger to the rule of law and constitutional government. Now the Los Angeles Times has joined the chorus of those condemning the newest Christianist Manifesto. Here are some highlights:

*
Few today would criticize civil rights activists, including the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., for participating in or condoning the violation of laws that perpetuated white supremacy -- with the understanding that they would face punishment for their actions. But such civil disobedience is rightly regarded as the exception that proves that the proper redress for unjust laws lies in legislation or in court rulings based on the Constitution.
*
That cautious approach has been thrown to the wind by Christian religious leaders who, even as they insist on their right to shape the nation's laws, are reserving the right to violate them in situations far removed from King's witness.
*
Last week, a group of Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox leaders released a “declaration” reminding fellow believers that "Christianity has taught that civil disobedience is not only permitted, but sometimes required." Then, after a specious invocation of King, the 152 signers hurl this anathema at those who would enact laws protecting abortion or extending the rights of civil (not religious) marriage to same-sex couples.
*
Strong words, but also irresponsible and dangerous ones. The strange land described in this statement is one in which a sinister secularist government is determined to force Christians to betray their principles about abortion or the belief that "holy matrimony" is "an institution ordained by God." The idea that same-sex civil marriage will undermine religious marriage is a canard Californians will remember from the campaign for Proposition 8, as is the declaration's complaint that Christian leaders are being prevented from expressing their "religious and moral commitments to the sanctity of life and to the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife."
*
This apocalyptic argument for lawbreaking is disingenuous, but it is also dangerous. Did the Roman Catholic bishops who signed the manifesto consider how their endorsement of lawbreaking in a higher cause might embolden the antiabortion terrorists they claim to condemn? Did they stop to think that, by reserving the right to resist laws they don't like, they forfeit the authority to intervene in the enactment of those laws, as they have done in the congressional debate over healthcare reform? They need to be reminded that this is a nation of laws, not of men -- even holy men.

*

Sadly, I fear that we are nearing a point (1) where the Christianist extremists of all denominations will need to be confronted and forced to respect the civil laws, and (2) the civil authorities must reject the Christianist efforts to destroy the separation of church and state. These people are lunatic extremists that cannot be reasoned with.

Christo-Fascists' "Manhattan Declaration"

There are some who say I write about religion too often, but it's hard not to do so when the far right religious bigots never cease in their efforts to degrade and denigrate LGBT citizens and keep us a persecuted minority. Just yesterday a new anti-gay and anti-freedom of religion offense was launched by far right forces of hate and reactionarism in the form of the so-called "Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience.” The irony, of course, is that most of the signers of the "declaration" - who comprise a veritable who's, who of demagogues and professional Christians - have demonstrated time and time again that they have no conscience whatsoever as they deliberately lie and disseminate untruths on a daily basis, all in the supposed name of Jesus. Likewise they demonstrate nothing but contempt for the concept of freedom of religion for others even as the whine about religious freedom - which they interpret as their freedom to impose their intolerant religious beliefs on all citizens. They are an utterly self-centered, self-congratulatory, and self anointed bunch of bigots. Adding to the irony is that one of the principal drafters of the "declaration" is ex-felon Chuck Colson who has turned religious indoctrination and bigotry in to a lucrative career since his release from prison. The so-called text of the declaration can be found here. Here are some highlights from the New York Times on the Christianist offensive:

*
145 evangelical, Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christian leaders have signed a declaration saying they will not cooperate with laws that they say could be used to compel their institutions to participate in abortions, or to bless or in any way recognize same-sex couples. “We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence,” it says.
*
The manifesto . . . is an effort to rejuvenate the political alliance of conservative Catholics and evangelicals that dominated the religious debate during the administration of President George W. Bush. The signers include nine Roman Catholic archbishops and the primate of the Orthodox Church in America. . . . They say they also want to speak to younger Christians who have become engaged in issues like climate change and global poverty, and who are more accepting of homosexuality than their elders. They say they want to remind them that abortion, homosexuality and religious freedom are still paramount issues.
*
“We argue that there is a hierarchy of issues,” said Charles Colson, a prominent evangelical who founded Prison Fellowship after serving time in prison for his role in the Watergate scandal. “A lot of the younger evangelicals say they’re all alike. We’re hoping to educate them that these are the three most important issues.”
*
The document says, “We will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other antilife act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent.”
*
Among the signatories are NOM's Maggie Gallagher, anti-gay Bishop Harry Jackson, Gary Bauer, James Dobson, Catholic League lunatic Bill Donohue, and nine Catholic archbishops including NY Archbishop Timothy Dolan. Make no mistake. These individuals and their organizations are a clear and present danger to the religious freedom of other citizens and ultimately to constitutional government. In the final analysis, they seek a theocracy where they get to dictate what others must believe and how others will be compelled to live their lives. They represent evil, not Christian charity and love as preached by the Jesus they claim to worship.

More Disingenuous Lies About "Protecting Marriage"

I have never met Chuck Colson, but I have observed that (1) he's an opportunistic ex-felon who seems to be using his experience "finding Jesus" to make a nice living for himself and (2) he's often in the midst of the ardent gay-hating set. I also know that he somehow worked a "Stepford wife" like transformation on Mark Earley, a former law partner of mine and former Attorney General of Virginia, who is now the president of Colson's Prison Fellowship Ministry. Truly, I do not know if losing the race for Governor to Mark Warner caused Mark to "flip out" or not, but I do know that since he affiliated himself with Colson, he has become much more of a religious extremist even if not as vocal of one as Colson who frequently indulges in shameless gay bashing - no doubt to help pursue donations for his business operation. In this regard, Colson has an new article on Break Point where he adds his voice to the disingenuous whiners seeking to "protect marriage" all the while as he and his Christianist allies (a) line their own pockets, and (b) divert millions of dollars for their anti-gay jihad that could be better spent actually supporting married couples and families in need. Here's a sampling of Colson's untruths and slander of LGBT Americans just weeks after gay bullying caused two eleven year old boys to kill themselves:

*

As I said yesterday on BreakPoint, we’ve seen this scenario over and over again. Christians or Orthodox Jews open up a business, ministry, or school, and sooner or later, a same-sex couple shows up demanding services that conflict with the sincerely held religious convictions of those they confront. When the same-sex couple is turned down, they promptly sue—even if others offer to accommodate them for the same services. And too often, they are winning their cases.

*

It’s as if the First Amendment no longer exists. I can’t help but suspect that radical gays deliberately target outfits run by religious believers in order to force them to accommodate their political agenda—or go out of business. So what can we do about this? How can we protect our First Amendment rights—and marriage itself?

*
First, if you are victimized by a gay activist group or same-sex couple demanding that you throw out your religious beliefs, contact the Alliance Defense Fund. They have spent many years defending the First Amendment right of religious believers—rights now under brutal attack.

*
Second, we’ve all got to work together to protect the integrity of marriage. Learn how by contacting the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy. You’ll also learn why we need to pass a federal marriage amendment. I know you’re getting fatigued, but it’s time to stiffen our spines.

*

The issue is critical. We all must learn how to answer the charge of “bigotry,” and winsomely explain why marriage cannot exist between same-sex couples; and how same-sex “marriage” will not broaden marriage, but radically and dangerously change its nature. . . . . If we don’t make the case for natural marriage—or fight attempts to shut us up or shut us down—sooner or later, we will all find our most sacred liberties sacrificed on the altar of the gay agenda.

*

Indeed, it sounds as if Colson comes close to seeking to incite violence against LGBT citizens. At the very least, he certainly is working to foster an atmosphere where zealots will feel justified in harming LGBT Americans. The Mark Earley I once knew was an honorable man who respected the equality of others under the law. I don't know what has happened to that Mark Earley, but he most assuredly has affiliated himself with a truly dishonorable man in the form of Chuck Colson.

Lies in the Name of God

Truth Wins Out, an organization run by my friend Wayne Besen - which has in the past featured a video of yours truly discussing fallen ex-gay, Michael Johnston - is taking out a full-page ad (above - click to enlarge) in the Salt Lake Tribune today in order to counter the Becket Fund's 'No Mob Veto' ad that ran last week in the New York Times. The Becket Fund ad, signed by a group of religious leaders known for their anti-gay views, falsely pretends that the Christianist leaders are friendly towards Mormons and seeks to characterized peaceful protests against Proposition 8 as a form of mob violence against religion. Wayne's comment on the backers of the Becket Fund ad are as follows:

*

“These anti-gay activists are crying wolf on the Proposition 8 protests, but they actually are a wolf in sheep’s clothing that preaches religious tolerance while practicing the most defamatory form of religious bigotry. We refuse to permit this orchestrated campaign to rewrite history, nor will we allow some of the most notorious Mormon bashers in America to pose as friends of the Latter-day Saints."

Right Gears Up to Fight “Armageddon of the Culture War”

Right Wing Watch has an piece on the battle taking shape in California over Proposition 8 and how for two hours on Wednesday afternoon, July 30, 2008, pastors gathered at 215 sites in California, Arizona, and Florida were exhorted by national Religious Right leaders and local anti-gay pastors to spare nothing in the cultural and spiritual war against Satan and his allies who support marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples. National figures included Tony Perkins, Harry Jackson, Maggie Gallagher, and Chuck Colson.

*

The primary focus of the call was Proposition 8 in California, described by convicted Watergate felon, Chuck Colson (who I view like so many in the Christian Right as an opportunistic charlatan who used a phony religious conversion experience to set him self up with a comfortable income), as “the Armageddon of the culture war.” Not surprisingly, the Roman Catholic Church which has done NOTHING to discipline bishops and cardinals involved in cover ups in the sex abuse scandal, is involved peddling an anti-gay message. I believe that defeating Proposition 8 is absolutely critical because not only will in ensure that ultimately marriage equality will spread nation wide in the USA, but also because it may be the Christianits' Waterloo. If they lose this battle, it may be the beginning of their banishment back to the political and societal wilderness where they belong. Here are some highlights from the RWW bulletin (note how nowhere in the diatribes do these alleged Christianis even acknowledge the humanity of gays):

*
Pastors from around the state, and those representing African American, Latino, and Chinese congregations, reported on their mobilization efforts. Bishop Salvatore Cordileone, auxiliary bishop of the diocese of San Diego, pledge the support of the Catholic Church and said the state conference of bishops would be providing congregations with organizing resources and urging parishioners to take part in the broader campaign. Organizers said that they are “blessed to have the full support of the LDS church” – which will help identify anti-equality voters in 21,000 precincts in August.

*
While complaining about opponents of the proposition “raising millions of dollars from wealthy gay Americans,” campaign organizers said they have already raised $15 million of their minimum $23 million budget and have plans for special offerings to be taken in churches around the country.

*
Rev. Dudley Rutherford, predicted that if Prop. 8 fails, the God-ordained institution of marriage would be destroyed; the engine of hate crimes legislation would be fueled, ultimately leading to it being illegal to read some sections of the Bible; the floodgates would be open to gay couples suing to force churches to marry them; and the polygamists would be next.

Watergate Felon Charles Colson's Forcible Christianization Program Slapped Down by Eighth Circuit and Justice O'Connor

This is a great decision and should be a significant set back for the Christianists. As a retired Justice, Sandra Day O'Connor sat on an Eighth Circuit panel by designation in a case challenging one of the most frightening elements of the American Christianist agenda: convicted Watergate criminal Chuck Colson's program, Prison Fellowship Ministries, which, for all practical purposes, seeks to make conversion to Christianity a condition of prison rehabilitation. Prison Fellowship Ministries (where my former law partner Mark Earley now works after what can only be described as a "Stepford Wife" like change after losing the election for Governor of Virginia to Mark Warner) seeks to pressure prison inmates directly and through added privileges to participate in evangelizing and religious conversion to fundamentalist Christianity.

Naturally, in the process Mr. Colson has a platform from which to make a rather nice living for himself and from which to pontificate. These "ministries" always (1) seek to eliminate the constitutional church and state divide, (2) strive to coerce others into living by the Christianists religious agenda either by force or other incentives, and (3) always provide cushy job stability to the leaders of the cult, I mean "ministry." The full decision can be found here: http://www.au.org/site/DocServer/Innerchange_decision_12-3-07_pdf.pdf?docID=2101. A few of the decision highlights follow:

On the merits, the plaintiffs invoke the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. . . .Also involved is the establishment clause of the Iowa Constitution, which is analyzed simultaneously. . . . The Establishment Clause erects a barrier between government and religious entities “‘depending on all the circumstances of a particular relationship.’” . . . For those “who wrote the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment the ‘establishment’ of a religion connoted sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity.” Walz v. Tax Comm’n, 397 U.S. 664, 668 (1970). “In each case, the inquiry calls for line drawing; no fixed, per se rule can be framed.” To analyze whether aid has the effect of advancing or endorsing religion, three criteria are decisive: whether government aid (1) results in governmental indoctrination; (2) defines recipients by reference to religion; or (3) creates excessive entanglement.

First, “government inculcation of religious beliefs has the impermissible effect of advancing religion. Agostini, 521 U.S. at 223. Whether funding “results in governmental indoctrination is ultimately a question whether any religious indoctrination that occurs . . . could reasonably be attributed to governmental action.” In the present case, plaintiffs demonstrated (and defendants do not seriously contest) that the InnerChange program resulted in inmate enrollment in a program dominated by Bible study, Christian classes, religious revivals, and church services. The DOC also provided less tangible aid to the InnerChange program. Participants were housed in living quarters that had, in previous years, been used as an “honor unit,” and which afforded residents greater privacy than the typical cell. Among other benefits, participants were allowed more visits from family members and had greater access to computers.

Second, in administering aid, a government may not define recipients by reference to religion. The aid must be “‘allocated on the basis of neutral, secular criteria that neither favor nor disfavor religion, and is made available to both religious and secular beneficiaries on a nondiscriminatory basis.’ In this case, to use the aid appropriated, inmates must have been “willing to productively participate in a program that is Christian-based.” The district court found that inmates’ religious beliefs (or lack thereof) precluded their participation. For contract years 2000 to 2004, the InnerChange program was not allocated on neutral criteria and was not available on a nondiscriminatory basis.

Third, as for excessive entanglement, there was no pervasive monitoring by the DOC, though there was some administrative cooperation.

Because the indoctrination and definition criteria indicate that InnerChange had the effect of advancing or endorsing religion during the contract years 2000 to 2004, the direct aid to InnerChange violated the Establishment clauses of the United States and Iowa Constitutions.