Trumpism and the Ugliness of Today's GOP

As I have often noted, I was once a Republican back in the days before the ascendancy of the Christofascists and the white supremacists (the two generally go hand in hand) within the Republican Party.  Indeed, in May of 1999, near the end of my membership in the GOP, I even handled the incorporation of the Republican Party of Virginia Beach at the request of the then moderate City Committee chair who was later ousted by a coup by the hard right.  Since that time the Republican Party at both the state and national level has continued its descent into ugliness and misogyny.   The only true principles of the party now are trashing the environment, attacking the rights of those its base deems "other" - gays and Muslims being two favorite bogeymen - and concocting schemes to shift wealth from the poor and working/middle class to the most wealthy individuals and the nation's large corporations.  Things that were once too reprehensible to say in public discourse even if one thought them in private are now mainstream in the GOP and there seems to be no limit to how low things will go.  The election of Der  Trumpenführer is the culmination of years of malignancy and, despite the media's efforts to depict economic worry as  the motivating factor for Trump voters, the truth is something much uglier.  An op-ed in the New York Times describes the sickness and the party's leader well.  Here are excerpts:

This week’s New York Times interview with Donald Trump was horrifying, yet curiously unsurprising. Yes, the world’s most powerful man is lazy, ignorant, dishonest and vindictive. But we knew that already.

In fact, the most revealing thing in the interview may be Mr. Trump’s defense of Bill O’Reilly, accused of sexual predation and abuse of power: “He’s a good person.” This, I’d argue, tells us more about both the man from Mar-a-Lago and the motivations of his base than his ramblings about infrastructure and trade.

First, however, here’s a question: How much difference has it made, really, that Donald Trump rather than a conventional Republican sits in the White House?

The Trump administration is, by all accounts, a mess. The vast majority of key presidential appointments requiring Senate confirmation are unfilled; whatever people are in place are preoccupied with factional infighting. Decision-making sounds more like palace intrigues in a sultan’s seraglio than policy formulation in a republic. And then there are those tweets.

Yet Mr. Trump’s first great policy and political debacle — the ignominious collapse of the effort to kill Obamacare — owed almost nothing to executive dysfunction. . . . . it failed because Republicans have been lying about health care for eight years. So when the time came to propose something real, all they could offer were various ways to package mass loss of coverage.

Similar considerations apply on other fronts. Tax reform looks like a bust, not because the Trump administration has no idea what it’s doing (although it doesn’t), but because nobody in the G.O.P. ever put in the hard work of figuring out what should change and how to sell those changes.

[G]iven what we heard in the interview — basically incoherent word salad mixed with random remarks about transportation in Queens — it’s clear that the administration has no actual infrastructure plan, and probably never will.

True, there are some places where Mr. Trump does seem likely to have a big impact — most notably, in crippling environmental policy. But that’s what any Republican would have done; climate change denialism and the belief that our air and water are too clean are mainstream positions in the modern G.O.P.

[W]hat Trumpism has brought is a new sense of empowerment to the ugliest aspects of American politics.

By now there’s a whole genre of media portraits of working-class Trump supporters (there are even parody versions). You know what I mean: interviews with down-on-their-luck rural whites who are troubled to learn that all those liberals who warned them that they would be hurt by Trump policies were right, but still support Mr. Trump, because they believe that liberal elites look down on them and think they’re stupid. Hmm.

Trump gives outright, unapologetic voice to racism, sexism, contempt for “losers” and so on — feelings that have always been an important source of conservative support, but have long been things you weren’t supposed to talk about openly. . . . Fox News in general, and Mr. O’Reilly in particular, is that they provide a safe space for people who want an affirmation that their uglier impulses are, in fact, justified and perfectly O.K. And one way to think about the Trump White House is that it’s attempting to expand that safe space to include the nation as a whole.

And the big question about Trumpism — bigger, arguably, than the legislative agenda — is whether unapologetic ugliness is a winning political strategy.

GOP In Panic Mode As Outrage with Trump Soars

My youngest daughter - a Millennial voter - shared this photo on Facebook.  Thankfully, some Millenniasl "get it."

Part of me cannot help but laugh as many in the GOP go into complete panic mode as Friday's release of a tape of Donald Trump's misogynist comments on women goes viral.  I mean, WTF did they think they were getting with Trump?  The man has a decades long history of bigotry and anti-women misogyny. Why the feigned surprise?  Why are Republican woman just now waking up to the reality of who and what Donald Trump is and will always be?  As a former Republican who resigned from the party over the party's refusal to recognize the concept of the separation of church and state not to mention the racism always just under the surface with many Republicans, I relish that the GOP's chickens are coming home to roost.  A piece in Politico look at the panic gripping the GOP.  Here are excerpts:

The Republican Party was in a state of turmoil on Friday night over revelations that Donald Trump once bragged in explicit terms about sexually harassing women, driving GOP leaders to denounce their nominee and even prompting calls that he leave the presidential ticket.

But while Trump and his senior aides huddled to strategize next steps, many Republicans felt paralyzed -- stuck with a candidate few ever wholeheartedly embraced with only 31 days left until Election Day.

Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz withdrew his endorsement, saying: "I’m out. I can no longer in good conscience endorse this person for president. It is some of the most abhorrent and offensive comments that you can possibly imagine."

Even Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, who has emerged as a trusted Trump ally and adviser, scolded in scorching terms: "No woman should ever be described in these terms or talked about in this manner. Ever.”

The party's past nominees were unflinching in their condemnation.

“Hitting on married women? Condoning assault? Such vile degradations demean our wives and daughters and corrupt America's face to the world,” Mitt Romney, the party’s last GOP presidential nominee, wrote on Twitter. And Arizona Sen. John McCain, the 2008 nominee, said Trump could have no excuse: "No woman should ever be victimized by this kind of inappropriate behavior. He alone bears the burden of his conduct and alone should suffer the consequences.”

Even within Trump’s own campaign, there was an overriding sense of doom. One aide expressed doubt that the GOP nominee, who has successfully weathered a number of scandals, would be able to ride the current firestorm.

There's "absolutely no excuse to ever talk about women in such a crude and demeaning way," Trump’s Texas chair, Dan Patrick, was quoted as saying.

As the hours passed, some Republicans began to call for Trump to step aside, leaving the presidential race to vice presidential nominee Mike Pence. Rob Engstrom, the Chamber of Commerce’s national political director, was the first to call for Trump to quit, followed by Rep. Mike Coffman, former N.Y. Gov. George Pataki, Virginia Rep. Barbara Comstock and Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse.

Utah Sen. Mike Lee said: “You are the distraction... I respectfully ask you, with all due respect, to step aside.”

At least one of the party’s top fundraisers declared that major GOP donors were “looking to fund an effort to back someone else as the Republican nominee”, and there were vague suggestions that the party brass might be looking into its options “in case” Trump isn’t the nominee.

But the party’s officials swiftly and aggressively rejected those suggestions. And one of its elite election lawyers argued convincingly that the logistical hurdles to replacing Trump made it next to impossible. 

Again, why the shock and surprise?  They have known who Trump is for years.  All of these vapors and conniption fits are the height of hypocrisy.  As for Republican women, another piece in Politico looks at those who are belatedly pulled their heads from out of their asses.  Here are highlights:

Republican women are abandoning Donald Trump in an historic repudiation of their party’s nominee, a devastating development for the GOP candidate's chances one month before Election Day.

Trump’s lewd, sexually aggressive comments about women, revealed in a 2005 audio recording that became public Friday, have prompted large-scale defections, from female Republican senators to conservative activists in the swing states. That dynamic further jeopardizes his chances with women voters, including white, married voters who typically back Republicans. After nearly two years of listening to Trump denigrate women — including Fox News host Megyn Kelly, Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina, Heidi Cruz and former Miss Universe Alicia Machado — Republican women have had enough.

A mass desertion by white, married women would effectively torpedo Trump’s chances of defeating Hillary Clinton. That demographic has been a core part of every Republican nominee’s constituency this century — Mitt Romney and John McCain won 53 percent of married women, and still lost the election — meaning that Trump, who struggles far more with party unity than previous nominees have, has even less room for error. But he is already losing badly with women overall, and Friday’s bombshell threatens to set him back further with women of all marital statuses.

High-profile Republican women over the weekend made clear that they have zero interest in helping Trump regain his footing, instead offering cover to other lawmakers looking to abandon Trump.

“I wanted to be able to support my party’s nominee, chosen by the people, because I feel strongly that we need a change in direction for our country,” said New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte, who is in a competitive re-election fight in a key swing state. “However, I’m a mom and an American first, and I cannot and will not support a candidate for president who brags about degrading and assaulting women.”

One particularly notable defection: Nebraska Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), who is perhaps Trump's most prominent female defender in the Senate.

"The comments made by Mr. Trump were disgusting and totally unacceptable under any circumstance," she tweeted. "It would be wise for him to step aside and allow Mike Pence to serve as our party's nominee."

Condoleezza Rice, who served as secretary of state under George W. Bush, posted on Facebook, "Enough! Donald Trump should not be President. He should withdraw."

And Fiorina, once a target of Trump’s trash talk — “look at that face! Would anyone vote for that?” he mocked during the primary — released a statement Saturday asking the Republican National Committee to replace Trump with Pence.

Again, why the shock and feigned horror?  The Donald Trump revealed in the tape on Friday id the same Donald Trump who has always existed.  Closing your eyes to the real Trump doesn't makr thr real Trump any different.  Thankfully, this revelation of the true Trump came out before the election and not afterwards.   

Trump’s Angry White Men

The ascendancy of Donald Trump in American politics says little positive about the nation, but is particularly telling in the manner in which it shows the misogyny that reigns among white males, especially those who are poorly educated.    Having two daughters, Trump is the antithesis of what I see as a decent, moral individual, most certainly when it comes to his treatment of women.  His views on minorities, and I suspect gays as well, are little better. One can only hope that the women of America and minorities hated by Trump and his Neo-Nazi like supporters will see the danger that the man poses and get out and vote.  Michael Gerson, a long time Republican and former White House staffer looks at the ugliness fueling Trump's support.  Here are highlights: 

What do most of the chief advisers and surrogates of the Trump campaign have in common? I’m thinking of Chris Christie, Roger Ailes, Stephen Bannon, Rudy Giuliani, Newt Gingrich.

What could possibly unite this diverse group? They are white, middle-aged (and older) males — not that there is anything wrong with that. They are almost psychotically sycophantic. (According to Gingrich, Donald Trump won an “enormous, historic victory” in the first presidential debate. Both Christie and Giuliani have called Trump a “genius” for avoiding federal taxes.) They are very forgiving about certain foibles (“everybody” commits adultery, explains Giuliani) and rather tough on others (Miss Universe Alicia Machado, says Gingrich, was “not supposed to gain 60 pounds”). They apparently lack the gene for irony (“America’s mayor” is smitten with a candidate who has flirted with 9/11 conspiracy theories).

The ascendance of people such as Gingrich, Giuliani and Trump in the Republican Party, from one perspective, is succeeding. A campaign of shouting, apocalyptic, white men has undeniably appealed to white men. A recent Post-ABC News poll found Trump up 40 points against Hillary Clinton in this category. Up nearly 60 points among white men with no college degree. These results are remarkable, indicating both the limits of Clinton as a candidate and the fury in portions of middle-class and blue-collar America.

If the United States is truly in the midst of a wave election, fed by the fears and discontent of white males, it will have enormous consequences in a country that has moved considerably in the direction of diversity, tolerance and inclusion. A very real culture war will be in full swing, not between social conservatives and social liberals, but between a movement of white economic and cultural grievances and a party of social elites and ascendant minorities. This struggle — rooted in race and class — would be far more bitter than the old culture war of ideas.

Trump’s version of Eden is lounging at the grotto at the Playboy Mansion or smoking cigars in the back room at the Sands, with a little Studio 54 thrown in. This is the man who reportedly pressured his future wife Marla Maples to appear in Playboy and negotiated the deal; who appeared in a soft-core porn video himself (not naked, thank goodness, but breaking a champagne bottle over a limo); and who recently took to Twitter to urge Americans to view a sex tape. This is the man who boasted about his penis size and made amenstruation joke during debates and has a consistent history of demeaning women as “pigs” and “dogs.”

I wonder how Trump evangelicals explain to their sons and daughters that this man is a suitable leader for a great country. I know that people in some minority groups are genuinely frightened by the possibility of Trump’s election. . . . . I also know that if Trump ends up losing in November, it will be because women rallied in large numbers to defeat him.

Conservatives oriented toward reform and outreach — longing for the leadership of Nikki Haley, Tim Scott and Marco Rubio — are largely waiting in shelters for the storm to pass. But what of the Republican Party will be left?

I truly believe that the Republican Party needs to die given its open descent into racism and hatred of so many fellow citizens.  The irony, of course, is that the poorly educated white males supporting Trump will likely be even worse off over time if Trump  wins the White House and implements his tax breaks for the wealthy (including himself).   I find it difficult to have sympathy for these men.  Perhaps less fixation on sports - the current opiate of the lower classes, in my view - and more focus on schooling and education would have allowed them to have found better lives.  But that would mean taking personal responsibility rather than blaming others for their state in life. 

Trump, White Male Fragility, and Unfiltered Hate

The New York Times has put together of video clips from Donald Trump rallies over the last few months The video can be found here).  The picture it paints of the supporters of Trump is nothing less than ugly.  Hatred of others and misogyny in general is a constant underlying theme.  And who is embracing this message the most? White males without degrees, white evangelical Christians for whom racism goes hand in hand with their toxic religious beliefs, and white supremacists.  Even among friends who much to my dismay are supporting Trump, latent racism seems to be a driving forces despite the fact that a majority of these individuals would deny it.  I suspect anti-gay animus also motivates many of the "godly folk" who are rallying to Trump's world view which is the antithesis of the true Gospel message.  The New Civil Rights Movement looks at the Times compilation.  Here are highlights:

"Sieg heil!"
"Fuck you, Hillary!"
"Hang the bitch!"
"Kill her!"
"Trump the bitch!"
"Get out of here, you fag!"
"Fuck that nigger!"
"Hillary Clinton needs to get her ass spanked!"
"Ignorance and immigrants. They mix together!"
"Fuck those dirty beaners!"
"Hillary is a whore!"

Those are some of the comments made by Trump supporters at rallies the Republican nominee for president has made over the past few months, as the New York Times shows in a compilation of various clips they've put together and published today.

The video, clearly, is disturbing, but what's more disturbing is the culture Trump has created, fostered, nurtured, and allowed at his rallies. 

Perhaps even more revealing are the comments of one Trump supporter included in the video, an older man who says he feels Trump is his last chance to "preserve the culture I grew up in."

Its ugly to say the least.  But sadly, what the video clips disclose are the true face of today's Republican Party regardless of whatever smoke screen the party elite may try to utilize.  A column in the New York Times makes the case that the time has come to cease giving Trump and his most foul supporters a pass.  Their racism and wide ranging hatred must be confronted and called out.  Here are column excerpts:

Donald Trump . . . . appeals to something deeper, something baser: Fear. His whole campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again,” is in fact an inverted admission of loss — lost primacy, lost privilege, lost prestige.

And who feels that they have lost the most? White men.

As the New York Times’ Upshot pointed out in July, “According to our estimates, Mrs. Clinton is doing better among basically every group of voters except for white men without a degree.” Put another way: “Hillary Clinton is largely performing as well or better than Barack Obama did in 2012, except among white men without a degree.”

Indeed, a Monday report in The Times put it this way: “A New York Times/CBS News poll two weeks ago found that white men preferred her Republican opponent, Donald J. Trump, to Mrs. Clinton almost two to one, 55 percent to 29 percent.”

He appeals to a regressive, patriarchal American whiteness in which white men prospered, in part because racial and ethnic minorities, to say nothing of women as a whole, were undervalued and underpaid, if not excluded altogether.

White men reigned supreme in the idealized history, and all was good with the world. (It is curious that Trump never specifies a period when America was great in his view. Did it overlap with the women’s rights, civil rights or gay rights movements? For whom was it great?)

Trump’s wall is not practical, but it is metaphor. Trump’s Muslim ban is not feasible, but it is metaphor. Trump’s huge deportation plan isn’t workable, but it is metaphor.

There is a portion of the population that feels threatened by unrelenting change — immigration, globalization, terrorism, multiculturalism — and those people want someone to, metaphorically at least, build a wall around their cultural heritage, which they conflate in equal measure with American heritage.

In their minds, whether explicitly or implicitly, America is white, Christian, straight and male-dominated. If you support Trump, you are on some level supporting his bigotry and racism. You don’t get to have a puppy and not pick up the poop.

And acceptance of racism is an act of racism. You are convicted by your complicity. . . . Supporting Trump is indefensible and it makes you as much of a pariah as he is.

For as long as racism and tribalism and xenophobia exist in this country, Trump’s foibles will not signal his ultimate failure. But let’s not let off the people who prop him up, claiming that they’re simply being party loyalists, or Hillary haters or having Supreme Court concerns.

Trump is a mirror. He is a reflection of — indeed a revealing of — the ugliness that you harbor, only it is possible that you may have gone your life expressing it in ways that were more coded and politic. Trump is an unfiltered primal scream of the fragility and fear consuming white male America.

Like I have long argued about with conservative Christians, it is time that the larger public recognizes that these people are not nice, decent or deserving of deference.  They need to be exiled to the cultural and political wilderness and shunned by truly decent people. 

Donald Trump And the Growing Debate Over Global Fascism

Donald Trump's message of racism, scapegoating and dangerously aggressive nationalism did not arise in a vacuum.  There are real problems in this country, especially the soar wealth inequalities and and the pummeling of the middle class, but a turn to fascism is not the answer.  Yes, there is a simplicity to blaming certain groups or other countries for economic misfortunes that removes the need for hard thought and analysis - something always shunned by the Christofascists and white supremacists rallying to Trump - but history has shown the dangers this path leads to.  Tellingly, while Trump yells about "making America great again," similar political posturing is taking place in other parts of the world, including Russia and portions of Europe.  For those targeted as "other" or the "enemy" these are frightening times.  Given trump's courting of the ugliest elements of the anti-gay Christofascists, perhaps I am more frightened than some.  A piece in the New York Times looks at the disturbing global trend. Here are excerpts:

WASHINGTON — The comparison was inflammatory, to say the least. Former Gov. William F. Weld of Massachusetts equated Donald J. Trump’s immigration plan with Kristallnacht, the night of horror in 1938 when rampaging Nazis smashed Jewish homes and businesses in Germany and killed scores of Jews.

But if it was a provocative analogy, it was not a lonely one. Mr. Trump’s campaign has engendered impassioned debate about the nature of his appeal and warnings from critics on the left and the right about the potential rise of fascism in the United States. More strident opponents have likened Mr. Trump to Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini.

To [Trump] supporters, such comparisons are deeply unfair smear tactics used to tar conservatives and scare voters. For a bipartisan establishment whose foundation has been shaken by Mr. Trump’s ascendance, these backers say, it is easier to delegitimize his support than to acknowledge widespread popular anger at the failure of both parties to confront the nation’s challenges.

But the discussion comes as questions are surfacing around the globe about a revival of fascism, generally defined as a governmental system that asserts complete power and emphasizes aggressive nationalism and often racism. In places like Russia and Turkey, leaders like Vladimir V. Putin and Recep Tayyip Erdogan employ strongman tactics. In Austria, a nationalist candidate came within three-tenths of a percentage point of becoming the first far-right head of state elected in Europe since World War II.

In Hungary, an authoritarian government has clamped down on the news media and erected razor wire fences to keep out migrants. There are worries that Poland may follow suit. Traditional parties in France, Germany, Greece and elsewhere have been challenged by nationalist movements amid an economic crisis and waves of migrants. In Israel, fascism analogies by a former prime minister and a top general have again inflamed the long-running debate about the occupation of Palestinian territories.

In many countries, middle-class wages are stagnant and politics has become a battle over a shrinking pie. Populists have replaced contests between left and right with a struggle between cosmopolitan elites and angry nativists.”

That dislocation may not lead to a repeat of Europe in the 1930s, but it has fueled a debate about global political trends. There is a tendency at times to try to fit current movements into understandable constructs — some refer to terrorist groups in the Middle East as Islamofascists — but scholars say there is a spectrum that includes right-wing nationalism, illiberal democracy and populist autocracy.

Americans are used to the idea that other countries may be vulnerable to such movements, but while figures like Father Charles Coughlin, the demagogic radio broadcaster, enjoyed wide followings in the 1930s, neither major party has ever nominated anyone quite like Mr. Trump.

“This could be one of those moments that’s quite dangerous and we’ll look back and wonder why we treated it as ho-hum at a time when we could have stopped it,” said Robert Kagan, a scholar at the Brookings Institution known for hawkish internationalism.

Fascist comparisons are not new in American politics. . . . . But with Mr. Trump, such comparisons have gone beyond the fringe and entered mainstream conversation both in the United States and abroad.

Mr. Trump has provided plenty of ammunition for critics. He was slow to denounce the white supremacist David Duke and talked approvingly of beating up protesters. He has praised Mr. Putin and promised to be friends. He would not condemn supporters who launched anti-Semitic blasts at journalists. At one point, Mr. Trump retweeted a Mussolini quote: “It is better to live one day as a lion than 100 years as a sheep.”

Mr. Paxton, the fascism scholar, said he saw similarities and differences in Mr. Trump. His message about an America in decline and his us-against-them pronouncements about immigrants and outsiders echo Europe in the 1930s, Mr. Paxton said. On the other hand, he said, Mr. Trump has hardly created uniformed, violent youth groups. Moreover, fascists believe in strong state control, not get-government-off-your-back individualism and deregulation.

“Historically, it means the demonization of minorities within a society to the extent that they feel insecure,” he said. “It means encouraging the use of violence against critics. It means a bellicose foreign policy that may lead to war, to excite a nationalist feeling. It takes xenophobia to extremes. And it is contemptuous of a rules-based liberal order.”

The debate about terminology may ignore the seriousness of the conditions that gave rise to Mr. Trump and his European counterparts. The New York real estate developer has tapped into a deep discontent in a country where many feel left behind while Wall Street banks get bailouts, newcomers take jobs, terrorists threaten innocents and China rises economically at America’s expense.

“We are seeing a new kind of phenomenon which is different from what you had” in the 20th century.  Roger Eatwell, a professor at the University of Bath, in England, calls it “illiberal democracy,” a form of government that keeps the trappings of democracy without the reality.

Lilia Shevtsova, a political analyst in Moscow, said neo-fascism in liberal societies in the West stems from crisis or dysfunction while in illiberal countries like Russia and Turkey it reflects an attempt to fill the void left by the failure of Western notions to catch on. The problem, she added, is that “the Western political leadership at the moment is too weak to fight the tide.”

Bible Misogyny - Twice as Violent as the Koran

With Donald Trump whipping up hysteria among the bigoted and racist Republican Party base, a much needed column in the New York Times raises the issue of the ignorance of most Americans on issues of religion, especially the violence and misogyny advocated in the Bible.  The "good book" can be downright ugly and, as noted in the column, the Bible is twice as violent as the Koran.  And, I would add that, if we are going to label some Muslims as extremists and terrorists, then the same standard needs to be applied to Christofascist extremists and Christians who commit murder and mayhem.  Here are some column highlights and I would urge readers to take the test set out in the column.  The Bible and the Koran can both be used to justify evil and Republicans busy prostituting themselves to the Christofascists need to look at the ugliness that Christianity more often than not has brought to the world and the evil the Bible would justify:

Donald Trump's proposal to bar Muslims from America may be a gift to ISIS recruitment and a grotesque echo of the sentiment behind the Chinese Exclusion Act and the internment of Japanese-Americans. But, like those earlier spasms of exclusion, the Trump proposal has plenty of supporters.

In one recent poll, more than three-quarters of Republicans said that Islam was incompatible with life in the United States. There’s a widespread perception in America that Islam is rooted in misogyny and violence, incorrigible because it is rooted in a holy text that is fundamentally different from others.

So here’s my quiz on religion. Some questions have more than one correct answer.

Q. Which holy book limits polygamy? ANSWER: The Quran limits a man to four wives; neither the Hebrew Bible nor the New Testament explicitly prohibits polygamy, although Paul says that church officials should have but one wife.

Q. Which religious leader massacred an entire city, including “men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys,” saving only one prostitute and her family?  ANSWER: Bible, Joshua 6:21

Q. Who is said to have ordered a massacre of heretics and innocents alike with the explanation: “Kill them all. God will know his own”?  ANSWER: A Christian abbot in the Albigensian Crusade.

In fact, religion is invariably a tangle of contradictory teachings — in the Bible, the difference between the harshness of Deuteronomy and the warmth of Isaiah or Luke is striking — and it’s always easy to perceive something threatening in another tradition. Yet analysts who have tallied the number of violent or cruel passages in the Quran and the Bible count more than twice as many in the Bible.

There’s a profound human tendency, rooted in evolutionary biology, to “otherize” people who don’t belong to our race, our ethnic group, our religion. That’s particularly true when we’re scared. It’s difficult to conceive now that a 1944 poll found that 13 percent of Americans favored “killing all Japanese,” and that the head of a United States government commission in 1945 urged “the extermination of the Japanese in toto.”
It’s true that terrorism in the 21st century is disproportionately rooted in the Islamic world. And it’s legitimate to criticize the violence, mistreatment of women or oppression of religious minorities that some Muslims justify by citing passages in the Quran. But let’s not stereotype 1.6 billion Muslims because of their faith. What counts most is not the content of holy books, but the content of our hearts.

When I hear Americans stereotype Muslims, when they don’t actually know any Muslims, it seems to me an odd echo of anti-Semitic comments I sometimes hear in Muslim societies.

Trump’s bluster reinforces the Islamic State narrative of a clash of civilizations, and undercuts moderates. In my travels in Muslim countries, I’m sometimes asked about Islamophobia. In the past, I’ve been able to say something like: Well, the Rev. Terry Jones may be planning to burn Qurans, but he’s a fringe figure. Alas, Trump can’t be explained away as a fringe figure.

In international relations, extremists on one side empower extremists on the other side. ISIS empowers Trump, who inadvertently empowers ISIS. He’s not confronting a national security threat; he’s creating one.

More than 1,000 American rabbis have signed a joint letter welcoming refugees and noting a parallel to the late 1930s, when the United States barred most Jewish refugees. The letter noted that refugees are fleeing persecution, not committing it.

“In 1939, our country could not tell the difference between an actual enemy and the victims of an enemy,” the rabbis wrote. “In 2015, let us not make the same mistake.”

It may be human nature to fear what we don’t understand, to allow apprehension to override compassion. But this is a time that tests our fundamental values, and let’s not surrender to base impulses.

Former President of Ireland Slams Vatican on AttitudesTowards Women and Gays

With the referendum on same sex marriage a little over two (2) months away, brickbats are being thrown at the Roman Catholic Church which is leading the charge in support of a "No" vote that would keep LGBT couples inferior under the civil marriage laws in keeping with the Vatican's embrace of 13th century ignorance and bigotry.  Among those denigrating the Church for its bigotry is Mary McAleese, former president of Ireland, who laid into Pope Francis and his predecessor, the Nazi Pope, Benedict XVI.   Irish Examiner has details.  But McAleese is not the only one urging a "Yes" vote.   As reported by Towleroad,  Iggy O’Donovan, a Catholic priest from Limerick lays out why he, and others who believe in religious freedom, will be voting "Yes" come May 22, 2015. First these highlights from the Irish Examiner:

Pope Francis is holding women back due to misogyny, former [Irish] president Mary McAleese has warned.

In outspoken remarks regarding the attitudes of the Catholic Church, the ex-head of State insisted that the Pope is “blind” to improving the role of women.

Ms McAleese caused a stir in 2013 when she condemned the Vatican’s attitude to gay rights.  While saying she admires Pope Francis, the former president urged a radical change in the Church’s thinking towards women.

“There is a blindness here that comes from a kind of a priestly formation that leaves so many good, decent, gentlemanly men like Francis still carrying an element, a residual element, of misogyny that closes them off to the dangers of not dealing with these issues,” Ms McAleese told RTÉ.
“I think that’s where there’s a problem with Francis, I don’t think that he gets it. 

“I’m talking about an altogether different phenomenon and that is the structure of a universal Church that comprises 1.2bn people, half of whom are women, and who do not have appropriate vehicles at parish, diocesan or universal level that fully respect the role they play in the Church or could play in the Church,” Ms McAleese said.

She previously caused a stir by stating that “a very large number” of Catholic priests are gay and the Church is in denial about the fact. “It isn’t so much the elephant in the room but a herd of elephants,” she said.  “I don’t like my Church’s attitude to gay people.

Things written by Pope Benedict, for example, were completely contradictory to modern science and to modern understanding, and to the understanding of most Catholics nowadays in relation to homosexuality.

For the political basis for voting "Yes,"   Fr. O’Donovan makes a statement of reasoning that ought to be inculcated into Christofascists in America.  Here are excerpts from Towleroad:

O’Donovan explained that churches “have views, ideals and laws about the family, and they quite properly teach their members about those views… But when we become legislators, as we do when we vote in referendums, we legislate as citizens for all our fellow citizens.”  He continued:

“It is possible to have deep and passionately-held convictions without seeking to have those convictions imposed by the state on fellow citizens who do not share them….Respect for the freedom of others who differ from us is part and parcel of the faith we profess. For these and for other reasons I will be voting Yes.”

The Frightening "Manosphere" That Devalues Women

Image from "Return of Kings"

I've noted before the sick aspects of American society that pushes a warped view/definition of masculinity and too often produces males who see women as objects and targets for violence, both physical and sexual.   Many of these sick males likewise are raging homophobes and feel threatened by gays who do not fit their definition of brutish macho masculinity.  It's a sick world view that is too often ignored but which tracks directly to spousal violence and misogyny.  A column in the Washington Post looks at this frightening phenomenon, one that Elliot Rodgers apparently bought into.  Here are excerpts:

Elliot Rodger will forever be known as the 22-year-old who murdered six people in Santa Barbara on May 23. But Rodger’s extensive digital footprint, as well as his stomach-turning YouTube send-off and 137-page manifesto, suggest that he may have identified himself differently: as an “incel,” or involuntary virgin; as an aspirational, if frustrated, pick-up artist; and as an adherent of the so-called “manosphere” — that corner of the Internet where boys will be boys, girls will be objects, and critics will be “feminists,” “misandrists” or “enemies.”

If you’re not familiar with these terms, you’re not alone: The manosphere and its various components tend to only make mainstream news over tragedies (like this one) and controversies (like one “activist’s” opposition to date-rape seminars on college campuses). But to thousands of men across the Internet — including, apparently, Rodger — they’re home.

Rodger has personally been linked to an account on the pick-up site PUAhate.com, where he advocated an overthrow of “this oppressive feminist system” and envisioned “a world where WOMEN FEAR YOU.” . . . .  In his last YouTube video, in which he chillingly announces the start of his killing spree, Rodger even cops some classic pick-up lingo: “You will finally see that I am, in truth, the superior one. The true alpha male.” (Emphasis mine.)

Rodger’s misogynistic rhetoric seems undeniably influenced by the manosphere, and his manifesto has kicked off a loud debate about how modern society treats women, online and off. If there was ever a time to take a closer look at online misogyny, it’s now.

Alas, even from a distance, it doesn’t look too pretty.

When people talk about the “manosphere,” they’re basically talking about a vast, diverse network of blogs and forums that take a certain antagonistic stance toward women and dating.  . . . . their core philosophy basically boils down to this: (1) feminism has overrun/corrupted modern culture, in violation of nature/biology/inherent gender differences, and (2) men can best seduce women (slash, save society in general) by embracing a super-dominant, uber-masculine gender role, forcing ladies to fall into step behind them.

[B]elief in retro gender roles has fueled a whole system of sites that denigrate women and advocate for a socio-cultural regression that puts ladies back in the kitchen and bedroom.

[T]he “manosphere” is frequently enough to make any progressive lady — or guy! — choke back bile. The Southern Poverty Law Center, which identifies hate groups, even went so far as to publish a report on it in 2012. (“Although some of the sites make an attempt at civility and try to back their arguments with facts,” the report read, “they are almost all thick with misogynistic attacks that can be astounding for the guttural hatred they express.”)

[I]ts ideology regarding the “right” kinds of men and women is pretty inflexible, too. Gay, lesbian or transgendered people are, needless to say, completely out. “Masculine” women (i.e. women with short hair, women with high-powered jobs, women with outspoken opinions) also earn the manosphere’s derision. But the community reserves a special kind of disdain for “effeminate” or “beta” men — men who either do not have “game” or who are still taking what believers call the “blue pill.”

Blue-pilled guys are the hapless, sexless dummies still treating women as equals and asking them out in conventional, non-pushy ways. This distinction, while it sounds ridiculous, is actually pretty critical to understanding Rodger and his place in the manosphere … such as it was.

Return of Kings . . . . A sampling of recent advice from the site, presented without comment: “all women are nymphomaniacs who crave rough sex”; “if your girlfriend insists on a big wedding, dump her.”

Having two daughters and a granddaughter, I find this mindset very, very scary.   A look at "Return of Kings" will send a shiver down your spine.

New Pope, Same Misogyny

Pope Francis has gone to great pains to appear more humble and less arrogant and imperial than his predecessor, Benedict XVI, but where it really counts, there has been no discernible change.   The Vatican orchestrated sexual abuse cover up conspiracy continues, the campaign to stigmatize gays and fan the flames of anti-gay animus continues -in France, even threats of violence have been disseminated as noted in a prior post - and the Church remains decidedly anti-woman.  Indeed, Francis has shown little tolerance for those troublesome Catholic nuns who actually seek to implement the Gospel message.  A piece in The Daily Beast looks at the continued misogyny under the new Pope. Here are excerpts:

[O]n Monday, it felt like it was back to business as usual when word got out that Francis is standing by his predecessor Pope Benedict XVI’s clampdown on American nuns for their “radical feminism.” For all the renewal that Francis promises, the cold, hard reality is still that the Catholic Church is still one of the most misogynistic organizations around, no matter how popular the new pope might be.

No one was anticipating a major change for women in the church, and no one expects Francis to start handing out condoms in St. Peter’s square or suddenly ordaining women. But a positive gesture toward recognizing women’s value in the universal church could have started with softening the strict stance on American nuns.

The sisters, it seemed, were staying silent on the church’s pet issues of abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality, and the ordination of women. Their silence was interpreted as endorsement—by not speaking out against such “evils,” the report said, the sisters were effectively showing their approval for the practices. The clampdown was met with outrage across the United States, leading to a massive Twitter frenzy under the hashtag #whatsistersmeantome, started by James Martin, a Jesuit priest and editor-at-large of America, a magazine on Catholic issues. “There is a danger of backlash because of the esteem [in which] so many Catholics hold nuns,” Father Martin told The Daily Beast at the height of the scandal. “For many Catholics, sisters are the glue that holds the church together.”.

On Monday, Archbishop Gerhard Ludwig Muller, prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, met with LCWR leaders who had traveled to Rome in hopes of good news. Instead, according to a statement made by the Vatican press office, Muller “informed the Presidency that he had recently discussed the Doctrinal Assessment with Pope Francis, who reaffirmed the findings of the Assessment and the program of reform for this Conference of Major Superiors.” That’s not exactly what the nuns were hoping for.

Now the sisters must wait until the investigation concludes to see if they will have to disband their organization to continue their work or whether the Vatican will accept them as a vital component of the Catholic Church after all.

As with gays who remain Catholic, I wonder what is wrong with women who remain in the Catholic Church.   They are viewed with disdain by the priggish and often closeted members of the male hierarchy denied recognition for the key role that they play in keeping the Church in existence.  How many times must one be beat down and almost literally spit upon before you get the message that you need to simply leave and walk away.