Click on the image to enlarge.

Late last year I wrote about the true Biblical model for marriage and found that -contrary to what self-enriching whore Maggie Gallagher and the folks at the National Organization for marriage or KKK loving Tony Perkins at Family Research Council bleat about marriage between one man and one woman - the true models depicted in the Bible rarely in fact support the Christianists' claims. Instead, the majority of the Bible's model's for marriage are something quite different unless one selectively ignores the many passages that show Gallagher and Perkins to be liars. The image above (which I found via Joe.By.God) illustrates what the Bible really says about the models for marriage. Isn't it strange how those who claim to worship the Bible as the literal "word of God" ignore so many inconvenient passages?

As I have noted many, many times before, if one is going to claim that the Bible is inerrant and the literal word of God, one doesn't get to pick and choose which passages to uphold and which ones to ignore. It's an all or nothing proposition - at least if one is intellectually and morally consistent. Which we all know is not true of Christianists. Their hallmarks are lying, disseminating hate and, of course rank hypocrisy.

Monday Morning Male Beauty

Koch Brothers Flout the Law, Get Richer and Fire Whistle Blowers

If anyone provides a prime face for corporate greed in this country, in my opinion, it is the Koch brothers (pictured to the right in the photo) who seem to never be satisfied with their enormous wealth and are only to willing to pollute the environment, mistreat workers and wage war on the middle class via the Tea Party as they lust for ever more wealth. Dick Cheney, of course with the money he made via Halliburton while small potatoes compared to the Kochs is another example of obscene greed and arrogance. Bloomberg.com is running a story that looks at the illegal bribes, dealings with the nation's enemies, etc., all in pursuit for more and more wealth. From the sounds of the article, both Koch brothers ought to be in prison, although we all know that will never happen. Here are some story highlights:

In May 2008, a unit of Koch Industries Inc., one of the world’s largest privately held companies, sent Ludmila Egorova-Farines, its newly hired compliance officer and ethics manager, to investigate the management of a subsidiary in Arles in southern France. In less than a week, she discovered that the company had paid bribes to win contracts.

Egorova-Farines wasn’t rewarded for bringing the illicit payments to the company’s attention. Her superiors removed her from the inquiry in August 2008 and fired her in June 2009, calling her incompetent, even after Koch’s investigators substantiated her findings. She sued Koch-Glitsch in France for wrongful termination.

Koch Industries is obsessed with secrecy, to the point that it discloses only an approximation of its annual revenue -- $100 billion a year -- and says nothing about its profits.

The most visible part of Koch Industries is its consumer brands, including Lycra fiber and Stainmaster carpet. Georgia- Pacific LLC, which Koch owns, makes Dixie cups, Brawny paper towels and Quilted Northern bath tissue.

Charles, 75, and David, 71, each worth about $20 billion, are prominent financial backers of groups that believe that excessive regulation is sapping the competitiveness of American business. They inherited their anti-government leanings from their father [Fred].

Fred was an early adviser to the founder of the anti- communist John Birch Society, which fought against the civil rights movement and the United Nations. Charles and David have supported the Tea Party, a loosely organized group that aims to shrink the size of government and cut federal spending.

A Bloomberg Markets investigation has found that Koch Industries -- in addition to being involved in improper payments to win business in Africa, India and the Middle East -- has sold millions of dollars of petrochemical equipment to Iran, a country the U.S. identifies as a sponsor of global terrorism.

Internal company documents show that the company made those sales through foreign subsidiaries, thwarting a U.S. trade ban. Koch Industries units have also rigged prices with competitors, lied to regulators and repeatedly run afoul of environmental regulations, resulting in five criminal convictions since 1999 in the U.S. and Canada.

From 1999 through 2003, Koch Industries was assessed more than $400 million in fines, penalties and judgments. In December 1999, a civil jury found that Koch Industries had taken oil it didn’t pay for from federal land by mismeasuring the amount of crude it was extracting. Koch paid a $25 million settlement to the U.S.

Phil Dubose, a Koch employee who testified against the company said he and his colleagues were shown by their managers how to steal and cheat -- using techniques they called the Koch Method.

How much lawless behavior are we going to tolerate from any one company?” asks David Uhlmann, who oversaw the prosecution of the Koch refinery division when he was chief of the environmental crimes unit at the U.S. Department of Justice. “Corporate cultures reflect the priorities of the corporation and its senior officials.”

The Koch brothers have vaulted into the American political spotlight in recent years. Koch Industries has spent more than $50 million to lobby in Washington since 2006, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that tracks political donations. The company opposed derivatives regulation and greenhouse gas limits.

The brothers have backed a foundation that has trained thousands of Tea Party activists.

The illicit payments uncovered by Ludmila Egorova-Farines raised the specter of a new blow to the company’s effort to improve its reputation following criminal convictions and civil penalties.

There is much more in the Bloomberg piece and all together it appears to reveals a vile, lawless, evil corporate empire which pretends to care about compliance with the laws while its actions suggest a very, very different story. Personally, I will make a point to avoiding any Koch product.

Will Perceived Racism Be Rick Perry's Undoing?

I often note that far right Christianists are closely allied to racism. One need look no farther that Tony Perkins at Family Research Council who has a checked past with white supremacists to make the connection. Or locally, last fall a local GOP official had to resign after circulating anti-black racist "jokes." Now, it looks like Rick Perry has a similar problem as it turns out his family's hunting camp in Texas for many years went by the name of "Niggerhead." What may play well with Texas bumpkins and GOP bigots obviously may not play so well on a national stage. No doubt Mitt Romney is loving this latest mishap for Perry's campaign. Frankly, I am as well. In this day and age it is far past time that people cease to be labeled - and denigrated and stigmatized - based on the color of their skin, their sexual orientation, their national origin or whether or not they subscribe to the fear and hate based religious beliefs of the Christian Right. The Washington Post had coverage yesterday on this development surrounding Perry. Here are some highlights:

Paint Creek, Tex. — In the early years of his political career, Rick Perry began hosting fellow lawmakers, friends and supporters at his family’s secluded West Texas hunting camp, a place known by the name painted in block letters across a large, flat rock standing upright at its gated entrance. “Niggerhead,” it read.

There is no definitive account of when the rock first appeared on the property. In an earlier time, the name on the rock was often given to mountains and creeks and rock outcroppings across the country. Over the years, civil rights groups and government agencies have had some success changing those and other racially offensive names that dotted the nation’s maps.

But the name of this particular parcel did not change for years after it became associated with Rick Perry, first as a private citizen, then as a state official and finally as Texas governor. Some locals still call it that. As recently as this summer, the slablike rock — lying flat, the name still faintly visible beneath a coat of white paint — remained by the gated entrance to the camp.

But how, when or whether he dealt with it when he was using the property is less clear and adds a dimension to the emerging biography of Perry. . . . Perry’s version of events differs in many respects from the recollections of seven people, interviewed by The Washington Post, who spoke in detail of their memories of seeing the rock with the name at various points during the years that Perry was associated with the property through his father, partners or his signature on a lease.

“I thought, ‘This is going to embarrass Rick some day,’ ” said this person, who did not want to be named, fearing negative consequences from speaking on the subject.

This story is based on interviews with more than two dozen people, including residents, hunters, ranchers, government officials and others who live in Haskell County, where Perry’s boyhood home of Paint Creek is found; in neighboring Throckmorton County, where the hunting camp is located; and elsewhere in Texas. Ray Perry did not respond to numerous attempts to reach him for comment. The campaign declined a request to make him available. Most of those interviewed requested anonymity because they fear being ostracized or other repercussions in their small community.

Throckmorton County, where the hunting camp is located, was for years considered a virtual no-go zone for blacks because of old stories about the lynching of a black man there, locals said.

“I was just so taken aback that it was so blatant, so in your face,” said a person from the Dallas area who visited the camp once in 1990 or 1991 and did not want to be named in a story potentially critical of Perry. “It was just, ‘whop.’ It was a big rock, big enough to write that whole thing out.” . . . . . We laughed about, ‘Rick’s covering his tracks.’ ”

I hate to say so, but this same type of thing among Virginia Republicans would not surprise me in the least - especially in Southwest Virginia where bigotry against those who are "other" is very much alive and well. It's probably one of the reason that places like Martinsville have unemployment rates pushing 20%. Who would want to locate a business in such a backward, bigoted area?

More Sunday Male Beauty

Tea Party Ignorance

Click image to enlarge.

The ignorance and stupidity of the Tea Party crowd is truly breath taking at times as illustrated by the photo above which has been notated to indicate the many things that government - funded through taxes, of course - does for society. While the Tea Party rails against taxes, nowhere do they ever explain how they think infrastructure and utilities are going to come from if taxes are eliminated or reduced to nothing. Candidly, instead of the signs they are brandishing, they ought to be carrying signs that read "I'm a freaking Moron" or "I'm severely mentally challenged."

James Buchanan: America’s first Gay President?

As a lover of history, it's disturbing to see how the far right wants to re-write history to support their nefarious religious agenda. In contrast, it's also encouraging to see when censored histories are unwound and the truth begins to surface - even if not in widely publicized circles. A case in point: new historical research that is raising the question of whether or not America hasn't already had a gay president. And no, I'm not talking about Abraham Lincoln who seemed to have had some interesting same sex relationships. Instead, I am talking about Lincoln's predecessor in office, James Buchanan, 15th president of the United States. Historian James W. Loewen, author of “Lies Across America,” which examines how historical sites inaccurately portray figures and events in America’s past, has researched Buchanan who was a "confirmed bachelor" all his life. Here are highlights from an article on Matt Comer's Q Notes:

More than 150 years before America elected its first black president, Barack Obama, it most likely had its first gay president, James Buchanan (1791-1868). . . . Historian James W. Loewen has done extensive research into Buchanan’s personal life and he’s convinced Buchanan was gay.

“I’m sure that Buchanan was gay,” Loewen said. “There is clear evidence that he was gay. And, since I haven’t seen any evidence that he was heterosexual, I don’t believe he was bisexual.” According to Loewen, Buchanan shared a residence with William Rufus King, a Democratic senator from Alabama, for several years in Washington, D.C.

Loewen said contemporary records indicate the two men were inseparable and wags would refer to them as “the Siamese twins.” Loewen also said Buchanan was “fairly open” about his relationship with King, causing some colleagues to view the men as a couple. For example, Aaron Brown, a prominent Democrat, writing to Mrs. James K. Polk, referred to King as Buchanan’s “better half,” “his wife” and “Aunt Fancy … rigged out in her best clothes.”

Loewen said their relationship — though interrupted due to foreign-service obligations — ended only with King’s death in 1853. In the late 1890s, Loewen visited Wheatland, the mansion in Lancaster, Pa., where Buchanan spent his later years. Loewen said he asked a staffer at Wheatland if Buchanan was gay and the reply was: “He most definitely was not.”

Patrick Clarke, the director of Wheatland, said the staff now takes a neutral stance on Buchanan’s sexual or affectional preference. “There’s no solid proof that Buchanan was heterosexual, nor is there solid proof that he was homosexual,” Clarke said. “If we ever come up with a smoking gun that proves it one way or the other, I would definitely encourage our staff to share it with the public.”

Loewen said many historians rate Buchanan as one of the worst U.S. presidents. Buchanan was part of the pro-slavery wing of the Democratic Party, and corruption plagued his administration. But, Loewen said those flaws shouldn’t discourage members of the LGBT community from acknowledging Buchanan’s status as a gay man.

“Lots of gay people have been exemplary,” he said. “Let’s look at Walt Whitman. For my money, he’s the best poet in the history of the country. But, we also have to acknowledge the failures. If we only admit that really great people are gay, what kind of history is that? And, how is that believable? It’s ridiculous. We have to tell it like it was.”

Hopefully, someday there will not be a conscious effort to hide the true sexual orientation of figures from history. No doubt the Christianists will scream and protest, but we do really need to know the truth.

Separation of Church and State? Not on the GOP Campaign Trail.

In a op-ed in the Washington Post Jonathan Turley looks at the disturbing move - particularly by Republican candidates - to erase the concept of the separation of church and state in the nation's politics. Obviously, as a gay man, I find the trend because it seems to be Christianist views that are being promoted even as more of the population moves - now 20% - has walked away from institutional religion completely. Turley presents the true view of the Founding Fathers on the need to keep religion out of politics and then contrasts it with the growing theocratic movement in the GOP as well as some of Barack Obama's pandering to those whose hallmark trait is intolerance towards other (e.g., BFF Rick Warren who I frankly regard as a lying crook). I don't know what the answer is in ending this trend, but I believe the theocratic Bible beaters need to be relegated back into the political wilderness and treated like a crazy relative locked away form public view. Here are some column highlights:

On Oct. 7, 1801, three men wrote to the new president of the United States on behalf of their Baptist congregation in Connecticut. The letter from the Danbury Baptist Association is most famous not for its content but for the response it generated from Thomas Jefferson, who described“a wall of separation between Church & State.” The Baptists’ letter, however, deserves far greater consideration, particularly in our current political climate.

Some 210 years ago, this deeply religious group stepped forward to denounce faith-based politics and “those who seek after power and gain under the pretense of government and religion.” As reflected in the letter, it is a struggle that has existed from the nation’s founding, with politicians periodically calling upon the faithful to testify through their votes.

Now, religious and even sectarian pitches have become commonplace and expected on the campaign trail, even as more Americans identify themselves as secular or non-denominational. The fears of the Danbury Baptists appear to have been realized, with political campaigns, federal programs and judicial decisions moving away from a clear separation of church and state.

On any given night, listening to the [GOP] presidential candidates could easily lead voters to believe that they are listening to a campaign for an ecclesiastical rather than presidential office.

[F]ormer senator Rick Santorum and Rep. Michele Bachmann have spoken out against the very notion of separation of church and state. Bachmann told a large youth ministry group a few years ago that religion is supposed to be part of government

Like his Republican counterparts, Obama has denounced secularists — and, implicitly, their view of complete separation of church and state. He has chastised people who object to the religiosity that has become the norm in American politics.

This is all a far cry from Jefferson, who refused to issue Thanksgiving Day proclamations because he thought it would violate the establishment clause. Later, Andrew Jackson also declined to declare days of Thanksgiving or fasting out of the same concern. The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, signed by John Adams and approved by George Washington and the Senate, included a statement that “the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.”

One problem with mixing religion and politics is that it quickly becomes a competition for demonstrating fealty to the faith, including promises of favoritism for mainstream religions or, conversely, discrimination against minorities.

Despite polls showing that 66 percent of Americans support “a clear separation of church and state,” those Americans do not seem to be motivating politicians or shaping politics. Indeed, Democratic strategists believe that secularists have nowhere to turn — which means Obama can court religious voters without fear of losing others’ support. The result is that the 34 percent who do not support separation seem to drive the political agenda.

[F]aith-based politics can become faith-based laws that enforce morality codes, expand public subsidies for religious institutions or sideline religious (or non-religious) minorities. Most important, our political-religious climate threatens to replace a campaign for the best policies with a contest of the most pious.

Even as the world recoils from the extremism of religious-based groups and political systems in places such as Iran and Pakistan, the United States is gradually erasing the bright line that has existed for decades between religion and government. While religious instability and strife in countries around the globe should reinforce the values of separation and the message of the Danbury Baptists, instead politicians are selling themselves as the Judeo-Christian answer to a troubled world; confident, as Perry put it recently, that “He has me here at a time such as this.”

Politicized piety is at the heart of the 2012 campaign. We need to rebuild the wall between church and state that has long protected us from ourselves. The question is: Do we have enough faith in secular government to get it done?

Again, I find the trend of pandering to Christianist both frightening and dangerous. Truth be told, these are not nice people but rather zealots who seek to generate hatred and division while building a quasi-theocracy. They need to be opposed on every front.

Sunday Morning Male Beauty

Church, State and the Immoral World of Antonin Scalia

Over the years as he has been on the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Antonin Scalia has, in my opinion, become nuttier and nuttier and displayed a growing inability to grasp the concept of separation of church and state - and to refrain from injection his personal religious views into court decisions where they do not belong. In short, he's become more and more of a Christianist who seeks to inflict his religious beliefs on all Americans. The irony is that while Scalia sees himself as Uber Catholic, his views (and those of the U. C. Catholic bishops) often make short shrift of true Catholic social teaching. Maureen Dowd has a column in the New York Times that gives Scalia an enjoyable to read smack down on his hypocrisy, pompousness and willingness to condone evil. Here are some highlights:

The church has aggressively meddled in politics on abortion, trying to defeat candidates who support abortion rights and prevent some liberal politicians from receiving Communion. But American bishops have been inconsistent in preaching their values.

They do not try to bring down politicians who supported the Iraq war, even though Pope John Paul II spoke out against it and sent a Vatican cardinal to warn W. that the war would be a “disaster” that would “destroy human life.” They do not express outrage at Republican audiences that cheer for executions, or target pols who brag on the death penalty, even though John Paul issued an encyclical against “the culture of death,” saying modern states have so many ways to protect citizens that the necessity for executions is “very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”

Scalia, confident in his own infallibility, dissented. As he wrote in a religious journal in 2002, he does not find the death penalty immoral, and he believes that as the “minister of God,” government has powers to get “revenge” and “execute wrath.” He’s clearly more an Old Testament guy than New, or he would know that some prisoners get falsely accused and nailed to the cross (Matthew 26:59-66).

Now Scalia has dissented from the opinion of a second pope on the issue. Pope Benedict sent Georgia state officials a letter last month asking for clemency for Troy Davis, but the very Catholic Supreme Court denied a last-minute stay of execution.

In his Duquesne speech, Scalia said: “If I thought that Catholic doctrine held the death penalty to be immoral, I would resign. I could not be a part of a system that imposes it.”

My family priest, Father Kevin O’Neil, teaches about “cooperation in evil” in Catholic moral theology. If you facilitate something that has been deemed wrong, like taking a human life, are you cooperating in evil? Maybe the Supreme Court should ask itself that question. Are you “cooperating in evil,” Justice Scalia?