I’m mad as hell! In the 1980’s the Republican’s started this trend of memorializing their most famous and influential stars by putting their names on buildings and institutions. If this isn’t a good thing, I don’t know what is. After busting the air traffic controllers union, of course you want to see the airport re-named after Reagan. And for all of the late Senator Helms’ outpouring of humanity, who can deny the appropriateness of naming an AIDS Prevention bill in his honor. So why are these idiots below getting in the way?

Gene McCarthy used to say that the function of liberal Republicans was that, when they saw a drowning man, they would throw him a rope exactly halfway too short to reach him. Under the ironclad economic rule that there are no progressive multimillion dollar corporations, the New York Times is now, and always has been, a liberal Republican paper. In the editorial today, "New and Not Improved," the Times is letting its desire to appear loftily superior outrun the facts. Just as it did when it permitted the discredited Judith Miller to shill for the Iraq war, the Times is now flacking for the Republicans with today's arguments. As usual, it does so just to create the appearance of being evenhanded while proclaiming a nonexistent equivalence of disreputability between the candidates.

A Minnesota pastor named Gus Booth addressed his flock at the Warroad Community Church in May and told them

"If you are a Christian, you cannot support a candidate like Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton for President."

During his tenure, George W. Bush increased government spending fourfold.  As a typical Republican Mr. Bush relaxed government regulation of health and safety issues which affect our daily lives and tripled government oversight of our daily private lives.

His Holiness the Dalai Lama, Tibet's exiled spiritual leader, will be visiting Seattle for a weeklong "Seeds of Compassion" event.

On Monday, April 14, the "Children and Youth" day, the state of Washington will bus 14,500 children from all over the state to meet with the Dalai Lama. They will learn from the Dalai Lama what compassion is all about.

Katherine Kersten does some good reporting for the Minneapolis Star Tribune. Apparently a charter school there gets religious funding despite the fact that charter schools are PUBLIC, and therefore not supposed to push religion.

This school, TIZA, has been trying to hide that it is a Muslim school, despite much evidence to the contrary:

Yesterday Rolling Stone's Jeff Sharlet dropped an amazing tidbit. Seems that the Faith-Based Initiative--the Bush plan to send billions of tax dollars hurtling to religious groups--was dreamed up by the geniuses at The Family, the District of Columbia's spiritual mafia and no fans of the Establishment Clause.

Which reminds me. Way back in 2002, below the radar, a bunch of God-oriented offices sprang up within the Department of Labor and other secular agencies. The idea was to grease the path of dollar bills from the U.S. government to social programs inspired by one deity or another.

So I decided to get in touch on behalf of a controversial faith--the fictitious congregation from H.P. Lovecraft's classic horror stories, about a terrifying fiend from the deep. I was just cleaning out my closet and found this:

Let me see if it's possible not to push the "defend Obama button" here.  I know we are hours away from a pivotal moment that may decide whether Obama gets the Democratic nomination, or has to fight for it for a while longer, maybe all the way to the convention.

This diary has nothing to do with that other candidate, I forget her name.

It has everything to do with Barack Hussein Obama.  Yeah, that's his name, something that defines his heritage as much as his racial and ethnic roots, his Columbia BA, His Harvard Law Degree where he was president of the Law review, his community organization work, his family and his votes.  That's how it works, no matter whom we support it is always a package deal.  

Race, religion and the intertwined aspects of freedom, justice and ethical prosecution of due process within a democratic framework seem to always evoke a variety of reactions among people -- sometimes violent, sometimes vehement, and sometimes quite touching and sublime.

In addition to the regular interactive dance of race, religion and ethics that we see in everyday life and through our media filtes, we also have a new horizon to explore -- the one afforded to us through the use of "new media" such as the blogosphere.

Two examples worthy of your attention and your help with dissemination are now posted over on ePluribus Media. Make the jump for more details.

(This is a revised and updated version of a diary from few weeks ago.)

Last year, Democratic Party "faith guru" Mara Vanderslice advised candidates not to talk about separation of church and state because, she claimed,  the phrase raises "red flags with people of faith."

Unfortunately, those who follow advice like that may be in for a rough ride. First Freedom First, a joint project of Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the Interfaith Alliance Foundation, is airing TV spots in South Carolina, as well as print ads in a number of places, encouraging voters to question pols about separation and related matters of religious freedom.

But if you are a candidate, campaign manager, or even a consultant -- there is no need to panic!  I have the questions for you. And you can read them all and get prepped before you get asked! You can also view the 30- and 60-second TV ads here.

What would Jefferson (and other Founding Fathers) have to say about Huckabee's appropriateness as a US president?

The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man.
Thomas Jefferson, to Jeremiah Moor, 1800

Across the ages, clergy have been interested not in truth but only in wealth and power; when rational people have had difficulty swallowing their impious heresies, then the clergy have, with the help of the state, forced them down their throats.
Thomas Jefferson to William Baldwin, January 19, 1810

In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814

That sanctimonious evil which we eluded two centuries past has revisited us; indeed, it is foist upon us, threatening enlightenment  and liberty.
Thomas Jefferson, from the grave, 2008

More from Jefferson and others as I continue. . .

Last Thursday, bringing my nine year old son home from school, I heard one of the crosswalk guards singing a Christmas carol -- it was pretty weather and we had the car windows open.  I chimed in the next line of the carol, and my son asked, surprised, "You know that song?"  I don't remember just which carol it was, but a common one, and I realized my son hasn't learned many carols in school.  I asked if they'd taught him any, and he mentioned "Jingle Bell Rock".

I read that Mike Huckabee, a Southern Baptist minister and one-time governor of Arkansas, asserted that Mitt Romney wasn’t a viable presidential candidate because he believed that Jesus and the Devil were brothers. Why else would he make such a statement if he wasn’t trying to allude to this "crazy" idea. But, the fact is that religions of every strip are filled with crazy ideas and the followers of these religions are told that the ideas are crazy, but if one has faith and believes the crazy ideas then they will be saved.

Mitt Romney had his Come-to-Jesus moment on Dec. 6 at the George H.W. Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas, when he defended his Mormon faith as he seeks the nomination of a party that has been largely taken over by Christian fundamentalists.

Romney compared himself with a previous candidate from Massachusetts, John F. Kennedy, who went before the Greater Houston Ministerial Association in September 1960 to confront hostility to his Catholic faith. But the similarities end there. Kennedy explained to the Baptists and other Protestants assembled in Houston, some of whom were openly hostile to the idea of a Catholic president, that he was “not the Catholic candidate for president,” but rather was “the Democratic Party’s candidate for president who happens also to be a Catholic.” He argued that the separation of church and state should be absolute and if it came to a choice between that doctrine and the dictates of a Catholic prelate, Kennedy assured the ministers, he would act on what was best of the nation, without regard for his church.

[Earlier today, Jeffrey Feldman held a quiz on countering Mike Huckabee's aww shucks huckleberry. My comment/submission as usual morphed into diary length and when that happens I usually leave it in the 'draft' folder and get back to pretending to paying the bills. Here's throwing caution to the wind...]

An ancient and anonymous saying goes that "Faith moves mountains. But bring a shovel." But in Mike Huckabee's view, faith seems to be the mountain you drop on scientists who say factual things that discomfort certain spiritual beliefs. Or, it's a mountain he insists scientists must shovel around in their search for the straight and best path to fact and national strength and security. In a short vid here via Jeffrey, he says he would "turn this country loose with technology." I take that to mean technology is necessary to aid in solving our biggest problems. If you're not paying attention, it's easy to miss what he doesn't say. He doesn't say what technology is, what it derives from.  He avoids one simple word. Science.

Gee. How come?

We all talk about the separation of Church and State, of which laws the government has a right to impose, of moral laws, of immoral laws.  Most of us know in our gut what is right and what is wrong, but it is then that we get into trouble, because everyone has a different perception of right and wrong.  So I tried to to think of a guideline... an objective, scientific metric which will help determine whether something should be prohibited, or whether a law should be a law, and what are the dangers of not knowing the difference.  

It would certainly help the debate going on between the left and the right.  Debates in the courts, which should be impartial, are anything but.  They are clouded by personal morality, which should not be.  If judges were truly impartial, then we should have a definitive metric that determines if this is the case.  We need a metric that isn't subjective.  We need one that doesn't have as large a gray area.  And we need one that we can all agree on.

Could John McCain's pandering to the Religious Right be working?  It appears that the Christian Coalition may reward John McCain for saying that a candidate’s Christian faith is "an important characteristic" for a President, that he would prefer a Christian president and that the "Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation."

Today, Christian Coalition issued a press release praising McCain's comments and blasting Muslim groups for taking issue with them.  (Note, it was far from only Muslim groups taking issue -- the organization I work for, National Jewish Democratic Council, issued a strong condemnation, as did the Anti-Defamation League and American Jewish Committee).

The Christian Coalition's release was disgusting.  It actually said: "The fact that the left-wing Muslim groups vociferously reacted against McCain's remarks, just added validity to his comments, and indeed value for his presidential nomination hopes."  Wow.

It is always interesting to see someone's response to the question: 'Do you love America?' Most people say yes immediately, but if I were ever to be asked that question, I would have a completely different response. I think that blindly answering yes to that question is not a good practice, because we all have different definitions of America. I love sharing mine. Read on if you would like to hear it.