Non-Traditional Families Are The New Normal

Despite the strenuous efforts of the far right in the GOP and the Christofascists to return America to the 1950's - a time that may have been the "good old days" for some in society but an ugly time for many others - a new study shows that the "traditional family" of a mother, father and children locked in a nuclear family no matter how dysfunctional that so worshiped by these folks is no longer the norm.  Indeed, the non-traditional has become the norm for the majority of families.  Whether this is a good thing or not lies in the eye of the beholder, but either way, society and social programs needs to recognize and adjust to the new reality.  Here are some highlights from Slate:

A new study by the Pew Research Center shows that the majority of American kids under 18 are not being raised in a “traditional” family, defined as two parents in their first marriage. Only 46 percent of kids have the Leave It To Beaver lifestyle; the rest are being raised by single parents, cohabitating parents, stepparents, or even grandparents. That's down from 73 percent in 1960.

Defining the nuclear family as “traditional” is somewhat misleading, as report author Gretchen Livingston told Jessica Goldstein of ThinkProgress. “In a lot of ways the 1950s and 1960s were an anomaly in family structure; the birth rate was uncommonly high, people married young,” she explained. “So even though people think of that as the traditional image of the family … it was actually [an] anomaly.”

The takeaway is that the image of a “traditional” family is a figment. Family life is always changing in response to economic and social change. 

These are the sorts of numbers that tend to get conservative hands a-wringing over the supposed problem of “out-of-wedlock” births, which have been rising alongside the number of kids being raised outside of nuclear families. As the report notes, “the share of children born outside of marriage now stands at 41%, up from just 5% in 1960.” But if you dig into the numbers a little, it becomes clear that the supposed scourge of bastardy isn't the primary reason for this shift. Only 34 percent of kids are being raised by single parents, many of whom were once married but are now divorced.

Not that these realities will quell conservative lectures about the near-magical properties of giving birth with a wedding ring on your finger. Younger women who give birth while single tend to be less powerful and less Republican than divorced people are, making them an easier scapegoat. But for the rest of us, this research is a bit of cheer before the holiday. If your family has a second Christmas at Dad's house, or you’re fretting about the etiquette of stepparent gifts, or you live in a family where “Santa” is not mom but grandma, don't despair. You're not weird, as it turns out. In fact, you're the new normal.

 Yes, the far right will rant and rave that society is going to Hell.  What's really gone to Hell is the ability of white Christians - especially fundamentalists and evangelicals - to dictate to others what is "acceptable."   But don't expect their whining to end any time soon.  There's way too much money to be made by the professional Christian class by making money begs to help them battles the evils of society.

The Christianist Struggle to Ignore the Non-Existence Adam and Eve

While the Christianists and their political whores in the Republican Party like to depict gays and gay marriage as the biggest menace facing western civilization and the Christianists' perverted version of Christianity, in actuality, by far the much bigger threat is the fact that science has pretty much proven that the Adam and Eve of Genesis never existed. They are merely a myth promoted by ignorant and uneducated nomadic tribesman. And it follows that, if they never existed, there was no serpent and Fall, no Original sin, no exile from the Garden of Eden, and ultimately no need for a Messiah. Or certainly not a Messiah as depicted in the Bible which the Christianists and Christian fundamentalists like to describe as "the inerrant word of God." Indeed, the Bible proves to be anything but inerrant and the entire story line of most of the Bible collapses. What one is left with is one folk version - and many others exist - of the origin of the earth and mankind. Moreover, the role of Christ as the Messiah who the New Testament claims to have been predicted by the Old Testament likewise falls into serious question.

While the reality of this enormous theological crisis has not trickled down to local parishes and pastors, the danger to Christianity (especially the fundamentalist version) as we know it has not been lost by some in the upper tiers of various denominations or in more intellectually inclined seminaries. And frankly, the problem is not one that can be easily circumvented unless one is willing to simply embrace ignorance and close one's eyes to the truth - something that unfortunately many fundamentalist seem all too ready to do. In a piece on Huffington Post, Pete Enns, former Professor of Old Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary for 14 years and currently a professor of Biblical Studies at Eastern University, tries to paper over the devastating blow the non-existence of Adam and Eve. Ultimately, while he tries to explain away why Adam and Eve should not be taken to be historic personages, he fails to address the fact that without them, the whole Christian messages collapses. Here are highlights from his post:

If evolution is right about how humans came to be, then the biblical story of Adam and Eve isn't. If you believe, as evangelicals do, that God himself is responsible for what's in the Bible, you have a problem on your hands. Once you open the door to the possibility that God's version of human origins isn't what actually happened -- well, the dominoes start unraveling down the slippery slope. The next step is uncertainty, chaos and despair about one's personal faith.

That, more or less, is the evangelical log flume of fear, and I have seen it played out again and again.

In recent years, the matter has gotten far worse. Popular figures like Richard Dawkins have done an in-your-face-break-the-backboard-slam-dunk over the heads of defenders of the biblical story. They've taken great delight in making sure Main Street knows evolution is true, and therefore the Bible is "God's big book of bad ideas" (Bill Maher) and Christians are morons for taking it seriously. Evangelicals have been on high alert damage control mode.

Evolution is a threat, and many evangelicals are fighting to keep Adam in the family photo album. But in their rush to save Christianity, some evangelicals have been guilty of all sorts of strained, idiosyncratic or obscurantist tactics: massaging or distorting the data, manipulating the legal system, scaring their constituencies and strong-arming those of their own camp who raise questions.

These sorts of tactics get a lot of press, but behind them is a deeper problem -- a problem that gets close to the heart of evangelicalism itself and hampers any true dialogue. It has to do with what evangelicals expect from the Bible.

Evangelicals look to the Bible to settle important questions of faith. So, faced with a potentially faith-crushing idea like evolution, evangelicals naturally ask right off the bat, "What does the Bible say about that?" And then informed by "what the Bible says," they are ready to make a "biblical" judgment.

This is fine in principle, but in the evolution debate this mindset is a problem: It assumes that the Adam and Eve story is about "human origins." It isn't. And as long as evangelicals continue to assume that it does, the conflict between the Bible and evolution is guaranteed.

Israel's story was written to say something about their place in the world and the God they worshiped. To think that the Israelites, alone among all other ancient peoples, were interested in (or capable of) giving some definitive, quasi-scientific, account of human origins is an absurd logic. And to read the story of Adam and Eve as if it were set up to do such a thing [explain human origins] is simply wrongheaded.

Reading the biblical story against its ancient backdrop is hardly a news flash, and most evangelical biblical scholars easily concede the point. But for some reason this piece of information has not filtered down to where it is needed most: into the mainstream evangelical consciousness. Once it does, evangelicals will see for themselves that dragging the Adam and Eve story into the evolution discussion is as misguided as using the stories of Israel's monarchy to rank the Republican presidential nominees.

Evangelicals tend to focus on how to protect the Bible against the attacks of evolution. The real challenge before them is to reorient their expectation of what the story of Adam and Eve is actually prepared to deliver. These kinds of conversations are already happening, though too often quietly and behind closed doors. Evangelicals owe it to their children and their children's children to bring the discussion out into the open.

The fact that the Bible is not inerrant - indeed, it's flat out wrong on many things - terrifies evangelicals and fundamentalists. Their entire neat little world falls apart and, perhaps most terrifying of all, they have to think for themselves and find a way to live with uncertainty. As a corollary to this, I continue to believe that gays are a flash point with evangelicals because if the Bible is wrong about us, then it's likely wrong about most if not everything. Which means they have wasted their lives and often been miserable for no legitimate reason. And that realization is the worse of all.

A Christianist Sexual Morality Chart

Click image to enlarge.

Nothing gets the Christianists more in a sweaty dither than SEX. Their emotional/psychological problems on the issue are immense even though in their hearts most I suspect desperately want wild rambunctious sex desperately - especially the tortured closeted gays (and, of course, Catholic priests and Baptist pastors, preferably with minors). The chart set out above from the Friendly Atheist - I found it via Joe.My.God - lays out the twisted analysis of when sex is OK for the tortured fundamentalist/conservative Catholic crowd. Obviously, the most important criteria is that sex NOT be enjoyable.

Alabama Governor Elect - Only "Saved" Christians Are His "Brothers and Sisters"

The batshitery of the Republicans seems to be growing by leaps and bounds as unabashed bigotry - be it racial, religious, or anti-gay - isn't even remotely hidden. A case in point is Alabama governor-elect Robert Bentley (shown at right) who has basically announced that he discriminates against non-Christians. I've said it before and I'll say it again, WTF has happened to Alabama? It was more liberal in relative terms and the populace seemed for the most part to elect more sane individuals to public office than is the case today. No doubt economic development officials are wincing across the state at the prospects that luring new businesses to relocate to Alabama to help improve the state's mostly backwards economy just got a bit harder thanks to Bentley's verbal diarrhea. In my view, the man ought to resign from office even before being sworn in. The Birmingham News has coverage and here are some highlights of Bentley's open religious bigotry against those of other faiths:
*
MONTGOMERY -- Gov.-elect Robert Bentley in a speech at a Baptist church this afternoon said he plans to be the governor of all Alabamians and be color-blind, but he also said people who aren't ''saved" Christians aren't his brothers and sisters.
*
"There may be some people here today who do not have living within them the Holy Spirit," Bentley said. ''But if you have been adopted in God's family like I have, and like you have if you're a Christian and if you're saved, and the Holy Spirit lives within you just like the Holy Spirit lives within me, then you know what that makes? It makes you and me brothers. And it makes you and me brother and sister."
*
Bentley added, ''Now I will have to say that, if we don't have the same daddy, we're not brothers and sisters. So anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, I'm telling you, you're not my brother and you're not my sister, and I want to be your brother."
*
Might I suggest that Bentley read the Bible passages on the parable of the Good Samaritan? He does not seem to have gotten that message.

And Christians Say Islam is Anti-Women?

As Islamophobia continues to run rampant in the USA and all types of anti-Islam statements flow from the mouths of Christianists, it is necessary to remember precisely what type of poisonous anti-female thread exists throughout Christianity's history. The Old Testament combined with statements of Christian leaders and thinkers over the centuries confirm that Christianity has just as many dark and frightening threads as Islam. Bob Felton at Civil Commotion has assembled some quotes that drive home the fact that the Christianists should not be throwing stones at Muslims since Christianity itself as practiced is a glass house itself. The statements also make it clear that Christianity has a long history of despising women and subjugating them. Here are some highlights from Bob's post on the subject:
*
Lest good Pious folk smugly indulge some Islam-bashing, a few words from a few of Christianity’s most influential thinkers:

■Clement of Alexandria: “Every woman should be filled with shame by the thought that she is a woman.”

■Tertullian: “Woman is a temple built over a sewer, the gateway to the devil. Woman, you are the devil’s doorway. You led astray one whom the devil would not dare attack directly. It was your fault that the Son of God had to die; you should always go in mourning and rags.”

■Ambrose: “Adam was deceived by Eve, not Eve by Adam… it is right that he whom that woman induced to sin should assume the role of guide lest he fall again through feminine instability.”

■Augustine: “Woman was merely man’s helpmate, a function which pertains to her alone. She is not the image of God but as far as man is concerned, he is by himself the image of God.”

■Pope Gregory I: “Woman is slow in understanding and her unstable and naive mind renders her by way of natural weakness to the necessity of a strong hand in her husband. Her ‘use’ is two fold; [carnal] sex and motherhood.”

■Thomas Aquinas: “[Woman] was made only to assist with procreation.”

■John Knox: “Woman was made for only one reason, to serve and obey man.”

■John Wesley: “Wife: Be content to be insignificant. What loss would it be to God or man had you never been born.”

*

Not exactly a proud heritage, but one that more Christians need to remember. This mindset still runs strongly through the Roman Catholic hierarchy and many conservative Protestant denominations. It's but one of the very ugly aspects of what self-professed Christians have done to Christ's Gospel message. Here's local buffoon, Pat Robertson's thoughts on women:
*
"I know this is painful for the ladies to hear, but if you get married, you have accepted the headship of a man, your husband. Christ is the head of the household and the husband is the head of the wife, and that's the way it is, period." –Pat Robertson
*
"(T)he feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." –Pat Robertson

How to Become a Millionaire - Become a Pastor

I have always been a bit leery of fundamentalist preachers - especially the ones who carry on about tithing and money while showing little Christian charity or humility. Obviously, in this country one need only think of Pat Robertson and other televangelists who have made their preaching into multi-million dollar empires and live like the wealthiest of Pharisees of old. It seems that this less than altruistic trait so popular with the professional Christian set in the USA has been exported now to Africa - along with homophobia and ant-gay obsessions. The Ecomomist looks at this development in East Africa where one can go from poverty to great wealth all by setting up as a pastor and fleecing the uneducated. To me, it's Christianity at its worst and is just as morally bankrupt as the Catholic Church hierarchy that lives the good life while preaching humility and sacrifice to those they live off of like parasites. Indeed, these folks make use car salesmen look ethical and paganism look attractive if this is the future of Christianity. Here are some highlights:
*
AT A rally in Nairobi’s Uhuru Park on a Sunday afternoon last month, Bishop Margaret Wanjiru, parliamentarian, assistant minister for housing and one of the country’s foremost Pentecostal preachers, was passing around a paper bag for contributions from the crowd.
*
Officially Pentecostals and other “charismatics” count for no more than 5% of the population. In reality, their ministers preach to about a third of the country every week. Their rise reflects an important trend across Africa. According to the World Christian Encyclopedia, about 17m Africans described themselves as born-again Christians in 1970. Today the figure has soared to more than 400m, which accounts for over a third of Africa’s population.
*
Ms Wanjiru has lived the Pentecostal dream. She is from a poor family of casual labourers and eked out a life as a housemaid and toilet cleaner before working her way up to a marketing job. She then experienced a vision from God calling on her to save Africa. These days videos, CDs and other accessories can be bought from her website using credit cards or phone credit. She makes good use of Facebook, Twitter and other social media. She is not afraid to court controversy, last year baptising the boss of the Mungiki organised-crime outfit, Maina Njenga.
*
[T]here is also plenty of hucksterism. You will be blessed with health and wealth by God, congregants are told, especially if you give generously. As in other parts of the world, the new churches in Kenya and Uganda provide a place for the ambitious poor to get ahead. Yet the real competitive advantage of the new churches in east Africa seems to be their willingness to tap, at least subliminally, into traditional beliefs.
*
However, the new churches may not be able to translate today’s assertiveness into permanent political power. . . . Then there is the question of class. Pentecostalism cannot quite shake off its impecunious roots. The cabal of civil servants, soldiers, and businessmen who dominate the golf and social clubs of Nairobi and Kampala, the capitals of Kenya and Uganda, are mostly Anglican and Roman Catholic and are unlikely to be swayed by any casting out of demons.
*
Support for the anti-homosexuality bill in the Ugandan parliament has fallen away after Mr Ssempa and other preachers accused a rival Pentecostal, Robert Kayanja, of sodomy. Mr Kayanja, coincidentally a half-brother of the Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, has himself been criticised in Uganda for milking the poor to live a luxury life. And the clear anti-Muslim sentiment scares politicians who want to win the sizeable Muslim vote.

The Outright Craziness of Homophobes Who Would Kill Their Child

As readers know, I am the father of three children - two daughter and a son. I prize them beyond anything in the world and even in my darkest moments consider them the most important accomplishment of my life. In my view, one ought to be willing to lay down their life for their child. Thus, I am always dumbstruck by parents who disown their own children because the child turns out to be gay. Indeed, I know several individuals who have been written off in this manner and I have seen the scars it leaves. Even worse, however, are the parents who proudly boast that they would kill their gay child -typically they are the very same people who wear their religion on their sleeve and view themselves in a self-congratulatory manner. One such deeply disturbed and un-Christian individual is Ugandan MP, Otto Odonga (pictured above left). This nutcase declared that he'd kill his son if he were to learn that his son was gay. That mindset is not only sick, but evil. And behind that evil - as is too often the case - is religious belief. Here are some highlights from Xtra.ca:

*
At a human rights forum held Friday morning in Kampala, a Ugandan Member of Parliament said he would kill his son if he discovered he was gay. The MP, Otto Odonga, was immediately denounced by the forum's keynote speaker, Makau Mutua.
*
"I am baffled by the kind of hatred you spew against gay people," Mutua said, "including your desire to be a hangman. Would you apply to be a hangman if the person to be hanged were your son?" When Odonga nodded yes, Mutua said, "There is something deeply wrong with you."
*
The forum, titled Human Rights and Sexual Orientation, made it clear that many Ugandans do not yet believe that homos are entitled to human rights. The country's MPs are getting set to debate a law that would impose the death penalty on people who engage in gay sex more than once.
*
"Human rights are not sacrosanct," Odonga said. "Private parts do not belong in the anus. We will not accept this kind of deviant behaviour in our society." Another MP, Christopher Kibanzanga, angrily spoke out against the "vice" of homosexuality. He asked, "Who are bisexuals? What do they do? Has it just been imported into Africa?"
*
Mutua, the chair of Kenya's Human Rights Commission, tore into the MPs as if he was a judge passing sentence onto criminals. "It's important that we all try to expose ourselves to knowledge, to keep on growing," Mutua said. "People who express extremist views are, in my view, always the ones who have read the least."
*
The Harvard-educated lawyer went on to liken the MPs' arguments against human rights to comments made by slave owners in the American Civil War. "The kind of speech you made against gay people was the kind of speech that white segregationists were making all over America. Those arguments are classic. They have been reproduced in every era by every segment of society. You didn't invent them."
*
Mutua went on to say he believes that countries like Canada would be justified in holding back on foreign aid if MPs pass the anti-gay bill. "There are consequences to being a member of the international community," he said.
*
As I have stated before, in my view, far right and fundamentalist Christianity requires ignorance and bigotry to thrive. Hence why the Catholic Church and other anti-gay denominations are expanding in Africa while wither in the educated areas of the world.

Gays Kiss-In for Valentine's Day in Paris

Via Towleroad is information on the kiss-in held in Paris today. Confronted with threats of Christianist violence, many went to the relocated site of the event. Here are some highlights:
*
"The "kiss-in" had originally been planned to take place in front of Notre Dame Cathedral but Christian Fundamentalist websites called in to "defend their faith against this provocation" using 'aids bags', 'sodomites' and other homophobic insults. The websites called for a violent response so the organizers decided to change the location to place Saint Michel in the nearby Latin Quarter, after the police strongly encouraged it, saying they could not protect them in case of trouble. The kiss in was held peacefully at St-Michel but some gays went to Notre Dame anyway and witnesses are saying 200 Christian activists were expecting them, and after they started kissing, they were attacked with motorbike helmets and kicked.

*

Isn't it amazing how the self-styled "true Christians" can always be identified by their hate and lack of love for others. WWJD?

More Hypocrisy: Anti-gay MP Iris Robinson's Lover Said to Have Been under 21

I written before about Irish gay-hater, Iris Robinson (pictured at left), a Member of Parliament who condemned gays as sinners, advocated for reparative therapy, and pushed an anti-equality agenda. Recently, Ms. Robinson announced that she would be retiring from politics for health and family reasons. Turns out, Robinson must have been studying GOP politicians in the USA. It seems that the real story behind her resignation is that she was having an adulterous affair with Kirk McCambley (at far left), a man believed to be one third her age. Oh dear, another homophobic sinner caught by her own disregard of the "family values" standards she would impose on others. Of course, when it comes to hypocrisy, Ms. Robinson is in the good company of the child abusing Catholic Church. But maybe she just thought she really WAS Anne Bancroft in the movie, The Graduate. Both Pink News and the Daily Mail have more details. First some highlights from Pink News:

*
Homophobic Northern Ireland MP Iris Robinson's affair was thought to have been with a young man aged under 21 at the time. News channel UTV, which broke the story of her affair and suicide attempt yesterday, reported the claim this evening. Robinson, who is 60, said the affair and suicide attempt took place in March 2008. She said the "brief" liaison began "completely innocently" when she offered support to someone who had suffered a family death.
*
Earlier today, The Times reported that a BBC investigation into the finances of Robinson and her husband Peter, who is Northern Ireland's first minister, was what prompted her to reveal details of her affair and attempted suicide. The "embarrassing" television documentary was to be broadcast with allegations over the first family's financial affairs.
*
Robinson, a fundamentalist Christian, was labelled a bigot for a series of outbursts last year in which she made offensive comments about homosexuality. In 2008, she told the Belfast Telegraph that homosexuality was comparable to paedophilia. She also told a radio show that homosexuality was a mental illness and could be "cured".
*
Not surprisingly, the Dail Mail has some juicier tid bits on the affair and refers to McCambley as obinson's toyboy. Here are some highlights:
*
Last night sources close to Mrs Robinson revealed her lover's name to be Kirk McCambley - and they said he was 19 when the pair became involved 18 months ago. . . . They apparently met in March 2008 at the funeral of Mr McCambley's father, a friend of Mrs Robinson. The young man, now 21, owns the Lock Keeper's Inn in south Belfast. Details of the affair were revealed by the BBC in an interview with her husband. Last night it was claimed that Mrs Robinson organised a £50,000 loan to help her toyboy lover set up the restaurant business.
*
Mrs Robinson and Mr McCambley's affair lasted for around five months, ending after they allegedly rowed over the repayment of the money. . . In her statement she said: 'Everyone is paying a heavy price for my actions... I am so, so sorry. It had no emotional or lasting meaning, but my actions have devastated my life, and the lives of those around me.'
*

Her name will bring to mind the fictional Mrs Robinson, played by Anne Bancroft who had an affair with a man half her age, played by Dustin Hoffman, in the 1967 film The Graduate.

Creationism and Racism; Bigotry as a Fundraiser

Two posts that I happened upon look at two issues that I have referenced on many occasions: (1) the Christian Right's use of anti-gay hysteria as a fundraising tool and (2) the latent racism just beneath the surface of professional Christian organizations such as Focus on the Family, Concerned Women for America, Family Research Council ans similar "pro-family" organizations. The Christianists have truly turned Christianity into a toxic poison and the racial hatred and love of money that lie below the surface need to be exposed. I find it incredibly ironic that the white Christianists routinely co-opt the black clergy into doing their biding even though in reality they despise blacks. The first piece is found at Patrol Magazine and is entitled: Fear Factor - When evangelical organizations use homophobia and political dishonesty to get members to contribute. Here are some highlights:
*
If you are still confused about what this has to do with balancing the budget at a Christian institution, welcome to the depressing world of evangelical fundraising. The letter I received, signed by the school’s chancellor, quickly extrapolated that England’s draconian infringements on religious speech will be hopping the Atlantic any day now, necessitating the recipient’s generous donation to Patrick Henry for the training of “scholar-warriors.” It concluded with a repudiation of Western higher education in favor of a more radical system that gives students “a plan of boldness and courage rather than one of secrecy and silence.”
*
To make things worse, that was the second letter I read last week that managed through a series of spectacular demagogic acrobatics to hold up encroaching, government-mandated gayness as the impetus for eager donation. Family Research Council president Tony Perkins spammed members with a 6-page letter (PDF) falsely warning that the Employment Non-Discrimination Act would “empower Washington to silence your faith.”
*
I hope that a minority of Christians would ever bother to read a Family Research Council action alert. But the shameless political hackery on display in these and other similar evangelical missives is too high-profile and too un-Christian for it not to be addressed thoroughly and publicly.
*
First, there is the basic issue of honesty. Advocacy and activism groups exist to raise their particular issue out of the chaos of political discourse, often by labeling opponents and only telling half of the truth. Washington works that way. But the statements of Christian advocacy groups are closely scrutinized by political actors and curious individuals alike, and, if they are to wear the faith badge, must at very least meet minimal standards of honesty. That wouldn’t seem to be so much to ask of an organization that purports to defend a faith that abhors lying.
*
More disturbing is the willingness to take a bristling, irrational stance toward homosexuality, an issue that the church—with a few notable exceptions—has already failed to address with any sort of grace. I have resisted the bullying characterization of all gay marriage opponents as bigoted yahoos, but to take a religiously conservative stand on the issue requires almost superhuman amounts of love, humility and nuance. The firebrand tone of these fundraising letters is exactly the opposite; it is openly comfortable with capitalizing financially on unfounded fear of the men and women next door.
*
Clearly, the most dishonest people nowadays in terms of never telling the truth are the professional Christians such as Tony Perkins and James Dobson. They would not know the truth if it hit them in the side of their heads. The second piece looks at the correlation between those who believe in creationism and racial bigotry - something I have noted as an undercurrent on "pro-family" organization web sites for years. The column appears at The Sensuous Curmudgeon and follows the "inerrant Biblical reasoning" that supports racism among evangelicals. Here are some highlights (read the full column):

*
LIKE most on informed side of The Controversy, your Curmudgeon has spent time debunking lies told about Darwin. See Racism, Eugenics, and Darwin. But we’re getting tired of being on the defensive. Today we’re placing the racism issue exactly where it belongs — in the camp of the creationists. We’re going to beat them over the head with the club they’ve been trying to use on us. We’re going to expose the racism that lurks not far beneath the surface of the typical creationist.
*
Any understanding of the creationism-racism topic must begin with William Jennings Bryan, one of the most loathsome creatures in American history — populist, creationist, advocate of the income tax and currency debasement — and a once-dominant figure in American politics. . . . Bryan’s role in the Scopes Trial is well known, and widely applauded by creationists; but they never point out that all through his career, Bryan was supported by the Klan.
*
Today’s Social Conservatives, who also label themselves as the family values crowd, tend to be very close to Bryan in their thinking. But they’re rarely so tasteless as to openly endorse Bryan’s racism. Yet we sense it in their insistence on creationism.
*
Let the truth be known! Racism is the always-present but never-mentioned motive for rejecting evolution and its corollary of common descent. Deep within every creationist is the secret fear that — gasp! — evolution means we’re related to … them! And you know who they are.

The clear message is conveyed, without a spoken word, that humans evolved from dark-skinned, hairy, wide-nosed creatures with sloped foreheads and jutting jowls. But the skin color, size of the nose and lips, and amount of hair are not supported by science, only assumed by evolution.

The “skin color, size of the nose and lips” — how offensive! If you click over to the Wired article you can see the image Deak created. Imagine how that strikes a creationist who believes in the literal truth of Genesis 1:27, which says: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. The creationist thinks: In His image, yes — but not that image! . . . They may rant and rave about dozens of other debunked issues, but deep down in the guts of the typical creationist lurks the dreaded specter of a family tree showing that he’s related to … them!

*

A related corollary is that if Goad created gays in His image, then we are like the Christianists and they are likewise made in our image - a thought that frightens the crap out of them.

The Oldest Known Bible

I have a very hard time understanding fundamentalists and Christianists who maintain - largely out of fear it seems - that the Bible is the so-called inerrant "Word of God." Any student of history knows that the Bible of today is very different from the original texts and indeed, no one will likely ever know its original contents. Rather, what we have in today's text is the result of translation related revisions, misinterpretations and out right deliberate changes made to fit the agenda of church fathers over the centuries. This reality is now all the more self-evident with the availability of the Codex Sinaiticus, the world’s oldest known Bible, online. Here is how the website describes the Codex Sinaiticus:

*

Codex Sinaiticus, a manuscript of the Christian Bible written in the middle of the fourth century, contains the earliest complete copy of the Christian New Testament. The hand-written text is in Greek. The New Testament appears in the original vernacular language (koine) and the Old Testament in the version, known as the Septuagint, that was adopted by early Greek-speaking Christians. In the Codex, the text of both the Septuagint and the New Testament has been heavily annotated by a series of early correctors.

*

And what can be learned from this anciet document? Quite a bit that will be most unsettling to the professional Christian set and far right Christian extremists. As BBC News reports this document shows many, many differences from the modern Bible (including the King James version, commissioned by King James I of England - who had numerous male lovers - as part of an effort to come up with a text that would lessen the religious infighting withhin the country. Here are some story highlights:

*

For those who believe the Bible is the inerrant, unaltered word of God, there will be some very uncomfortable questions to answer. It shows there have been thousands of alterations to today's bible.

*
The Codex, probably the oldest Bible we have, also has books which are missing from the Authorised Version that most Christians are familiar with today - and it does not have crucial verses relating to the Resurrection.

*

Firstly, the Codex contains two extra books in the New Testament. One is the little-known Shepherd of Hermas, written in Rome in the 2nd Century - the other, the Epistle of Barnabas. This goes out of its way to claim that it was the Jews, not the Romans, who killed Jesus, and is full of anti-Semitic kindling ready to be lit. "His blood be upon us," Barnabas has the Jews cry.

*

The Codex - and other early manuscripts - omit some mentions of ascension of Jesus into heaven, and key references to the Resurrection, which the Archbishop of Canterbury has said is essential for Christian belief. Other differences concern how Jesus behaved. In one passage of the Codex, Jesus is said to be "angry" as he healed a leper, whereas the modern text records him as healing with "compassion".

*
Also missing is the story of the woman taken in adultery and about to be stoned - until Jesus rebuked the Pharisees (a Jewish sect), inviting anyone without sin to cast the first stone. Nor are there words of forgiveness from the cross. Jesus does not say "Father forgive them for they know not what they do".

*

"It should be regarded as a living text, something constantly changing as generation and generation tries to understand the mind of God," says David Parker, a Christian working on digitising the Codex. Others may take it as more evidence that the Bible is the word of man, not God.

*

Thus, those who vehemently condemn LGBT individuals and dny us equality citing as justification the "inerrant word of God" do so based on a document that I suspect will increasingly be proved over time to have been written and revised largely by men over the centuries to support certain societal norms of the time and based on tribal bigotry, nationalism, quests for power, and medical and scientific ignorance. Yes, I support the general Gospel message of loving God and loving one's neighbor. Beyond that, however, I believe that it is increasingly risky to act and persecute others based on words in the modern day Bible that may never have existed in the original version.

*

H/T Bob Felton.

Mom's Plea Deal for Child's Death Includes "Resurrection Clause"

The enemies of LGBT Americans among the Christian Right bloviate endlessly about how gays cannot properly parent children and pose a threat to the natural development of children's identity. I'd say better a gay or lesbian parent than a heterosexual religious nut case. A story out of Maryland makes this argument all too strongly. The mother - who is sad to have belonged to a "cult" rather than a small far right fundamentalist denomination - starved her year old son (shown in the photo) to death believing he was a "demon" and that he would be resurrected free of the affliction. While the story sounds too crazy to be true, all the sad details are available via CNN. Here are some highlights:

*

Maryland woman involved with a group described as a religious cult pleaded guilty in the starvation death of her son, but insisted that the charges be dropped when he is resurrected. The condition was made a part of Ria Ramkissoon's plea agreement, officials said. She entered the plea Monday in Baltimore, Maryland, to a first-degree felony count of child abuse resulting in death, her attorney, Steven Silverman, said Tuesday. Ramkissoon, a member of a group called One Mind Ministries, believes Javon Thompson, her year-old son, will rise again

*

Under the plea agreement, Ramkissoon, 22, must testify against four other One Mind Ministries members who are also facing charges, including first-degree murder, in Javon's death. At her sentencing, set for August, she will receive a 20-year sentence, which will be suspended except for the time she has already served behind bars, Silverman said. She must also undergo deprogramming and psychiatric counseling.

*

Ramkissoon and the others are accused of denying Javon food after the group's leader, a 40-year-old woman who goes by the name Queen Antoinette, decreed the boy was a demon since he refused to say "amen" after meals, Silverman said.

*

Javon is believed to have died in December 2006, court documents allege. Following his death, the group members put the boy's body in a back room, and "everyone was directed to come in and pray," according to the documents. "The Queen told everyone that 'God was going to raise Javon from the dead.' Javon remained in the room for an extended period of time (in excess of one week). The resurrection never took place." Authorities believe the boy's body was then placed into a wheeled suitcase along with mothballs and fabric-softener sheets, documents said. Prosecutors allege Antoinette opened the suitcase periodically and sprayed its interior with Lysol to mask the decomposition odor.

*

Court documents say Ramkissoon joined One Mind Ministries after Javon's birth in 2005. Silverman described her as a petite, soft-spoken woman who rejected her family's Hindu religion, became a devout Christian and wanted to raise her son in that religion. "She didn't want to have to work or go to school. She just wanted to take care of her son, and they offered her all this," he said.