Today’s Reading List – September 20, 2006 | Article VI Blog

Yesterday we linked on the IRS watchdogging churches. Looks like Barry Lynn (Americans United for the Separation of Church and State) is driving them in that direction. The question is how do we drive them back approprately?

Like I said, liberals and religion do not mix well. (HT: Kruse Kronicle) There is a huge difference between political action out of one's religious convictions (conservatives) and trying to harness religion to political objectives (liberals).

Lowell: This is an interesting snippet from the piece:

Indeed, it is telling that the people who speak with the greatest moral clarity about the current wars in the Middle East are members of the Christian right, whose infatuation with biblical prophecy is nearly as troubling as the ideology of our enemies. Religious dogmatism is now playing both sides of the board in a very dangerous game.

One could do a lot with that one. I've always enjoyed the liberal-leftist view that because they are the ones who think clearly and rationally, they really ought to be the ones who are "out front" in the war against extreme ideologies. Yeah, like they were back in the 1930's when they recognized the evils of Stalinism and Fascism. No, wait, maybe it wasn't the left who did that . . . . The real howler is the fascinating notion that Christian belief in Biblical prophecy "is nearly as troubling as the ideology of our enemies." Oh, please. The ridiculous notion of moral equivalency between politically conservative Christians and the Taliban is getting sooo tired now.

McIntyre cannot make sense of McCain. Not surprising, no one can. Could we be down to Romney v Guliani already?

This is just funny – it's a Kos post by a guy that claims to understand how conservative Republicans think. Somehow he makes a connection between fundamentalist Christian support and the president's stance on interrogation, based on a single piece that interviewed fundamentalist leaders about it, as if they are the only ones that support the president on this, and then switches issues completely to Romney and abortion and concludes fundamentalists can't possibly support him? Most convoluted thing I have ever read. What he fails to understand is even fundamentalists believe in redemption – something often lacking in Kos land.

Lowell: In a departure from my usual routine, I actually visited the Daily Kos site and checked a few of the comments to the post John links to. Here's one:

Do you think the fundies are going to tolerate [Romney's success]? Maybe a little history lesson from Illinios [sic] about 150 years ago. Brigham Young moved his people west because the fundies of the time could not put up with the Mormons. There are lots of single issue people in the Rethug party, but I'd bet a few more issues will come along. These fundie rethugs are basically bigots. Utah would vote for him, maybe New York and a few other desert states, but I can't see Mitt as a winning combination.

This is interesting on several levels. First, the commenter exposes some historical ignorance. The Mormon exodus from Illinois had almost nothing to do with fundamentalist Christians. It was more about politics and general religious bigotry from largely un-churched people. The mob that murdered Joseph Smith, for example, was a bunch of thugs, really. There's no evidence they were religious at all. Then, ironically, the commenter engages in bigotry himself while accusing "the fundie rethugs" of being bigots, assuring everyone that fundamentalists won't vote for Romney. I wonder if this guy even knows a single fundamentalist? Ah, the clear thinking of the Kos crowd!

Relatedly, Lowry at The Corner think Romney has had a good few months, which he has, but the remark causes KLo to respond with the "tart" McCain quote. I do so love when we are a day ahead of the bigs. Lowell: And I must admit that I love it when McCain's churlish side comes out.