Attytood: Oath Keepers "urgent" plea for thousands of gun enthusiasts to descend on DC on April 19

Just An Earth-Bound Misfit: A day when some bad sh*t happened

digby: This man still won't take responsibility for what he helped cause

James Wolcott: The Rubes and the Ruse

Blog Against Theocracy: A plethora of posts from the 2010 participants

OFF THE BEATEN PATH: The Girl Can't Help It Vintage Blog, Isebrand.com, Border Explorer

As part of this weekend's Blog Against Theocracy blogswarm, Tengrain at Mock Paper Scissors is holding a "Pin the Tail on the Theocrat" contest.

Open thread below.

I didn't think I could have any less respect for the institutional Catholic church, but they keep setting new lows. This is simply appalling.

The Catholic Church is known for its poor treatment of its workers (I know someone who's taught in Catholic schools for 30 years, and I make more on unemployment than she does in her weekly paycheck) and since the Church climbed into bed with the American right wing some decades back, they've dropped any pretense that they're applying the spirit of Jesus' teachings:

Employees at Catholic Charities were told Monday that the social services organization is changing its health coverage to avoid offering benefits to same-sex partners of its workers -- the latest fallout from a bitter debate between District officials trying to legalize same-sex marriage and the Catholic Archdiocese of Washington.

Starting Tuesday, Catholic Charities will not offer benefits to spouses of new employees or to spouses of current employees who are not already enrolled in the plan. A letter describing the change in health benefits was e-mailed to employees Monday, two days before same-sex marriage will become legal in the District.

"We looked at all the options and implications," said the charity's president, Edward J. Orzechowski. "This allows us to continue providing services, comply with the city's new requirements and remain faithful to the church's teaching."

Catholic Charities, which receives $22 million from the city for social service programs, protested in the run-up to the council's December vote to allow same-sex marriage, saying that it might not be able to continue its contracts with the city, including operating homeless shelters and facilitating city-sponsored adoptions. Being forced to recognize same-sex marriage, church officials said, could make it impossible for the church to be a city contractor because Catholic teaching opposes such unions.

After the council voted to legalize gay marriage, Catholic Charities last month transferred its foster-care program -- 43 children, 35 families and seven staff members -- to another provider, the National Center for Children and Families.

Orzechowski said Monday that the change in health benefits will be the last move necessary in response to the legislation.

"We do not anticipate any further changes whatsoever," he said. "Taking the action we have on foster care and spousal we feel has addressed everything the new law requires of us."

Maybe this wouldn't stick in my craw so much if they'd taken the same "principled" stand against the Church's numerous child abusers and pedophiles -- before the multi-million dollar payouts, I mean.

Since Joe simply lies when it suits his purpose, maybe his "devout" Judaism is more of a convenient fundraising accessory, something to enhance his shtick of being a "pious" man who upholds "morality," more than a matter of integrity. Because his recent actions certainly doesn't seem to agree with the basic tenets of Judaism. Maybe that's why Israel itself has socialized health care - that we subsidize:

Washington — On a recent Saturday afternoon, after completing his Sabbath morning prayers, Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut braved a four-mile, snowy walk to the Capitol building from his Georgetown synagogue.

“I have a responsibility to my constituents, really to my conscience, to be here on something as important as health care reform,” Lieberman told the congressional newspaper The Hill, describing his wish to combine his Jewish beliefs with his duties as a lawmaker.

By walking to a special Saturday Senate debate on health care reform, Lieberman was complying with the traditional religious ban against driving during the Sabbath. But Lieberman’s many critics in the Jewish community claim that the Connecticut independent is missing the broader Jewish concern.

Well, yes. This is exactly the kind of pious showboating Joe likes to substitute for actual faith. The United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism released a statement back in 1993 on Judaism and Health Care Reform, in which they pointed out the thinking behind their stand:

It is a positive commandment to save the life of a person in danger from illness. This duty falls under the general obligation of saving life, which is grounded in a number of biblical verses, including "Thou shalt not stand idly by the blood of your fellow," (Lev. 19:16) "And your fellow shall live by your side," (Lev. 25:36), and "You shall restore it [in this case, life] to him" (Deut. 22:2). So great is the mitzvah of saving life, that nearly all other religious obligations are subordinated to it: we violate the Sabbath to save a person's life (Pikuah nefesh doha et ha-shabbat, Yoma 85b), and there is a general principle in Jewish law that danger to life and health is of greater religious concern than ritual matters (Hamirah sakanta mi'issura, Hullin 10a).

Tzedaka -- Communal Obligations to Meeting Basic Human Needs: Just as the Jewish community recognizes an obligation to provide for such basic needs as food, clothing, and shelter through the collection and distribution of communal funds, so, too, have Jews insisted that no person be denied access to health care on account of inability to pay.

While physicians are not required to provide their services for free ("A physician who takes nothing is worth nothing" -- Baba Kamma 85a), communal subsidies matched by reduced rates for poor patients have been the norm.[Shulhan Arukh, Yoreh Deah 249:16; see also Responsa Ramat Rahel of Rabbi Eliezer Y. Waldenberg, sections 24-25]

Yes, Joe. It's about saving lives. Danger to life and health is more important than ritual matters. But then again, it seems like you're more concerned with making yourself look "religious." Shame on you for using your faith as a protective cover for hardball corporate politics.

“Health care reform is the key moral issue facing the country right now,” said one of those critics, Rabbi Charles Arian of Beth Jacob Synagogue in Norwich, Conn. “I will be personally disappointed if it stops dead in its tracks because Senator Lieberman invokes a filibuster.”

Lieberman has vowed to vote against ending a Republican filibuster of the health care reform bill that the Senate is now debating if it includes a government-run insurance program. Due to the Senate’s current balance of forces, that would effectively kill a historic effort to reform the country’s ramshackle health insurance system, which now excludes millions of people from obtaining health coverage.

[...] Lieberman’s threat is being met with harsh criticism within the Jewish community in Connecticut, where public-opinion surveys show that strong general majorities support a government-sponsored insurance option.

Widely seen as the key domestic cause for American Jews right now, health care reform has several national Jewish groups actively lobbying for it. Among them is Jewish Federations of North America, the umbrella organization for the nation’s local Jewish philanthropic federations, which are deeply involved in funding health care. But national Jewish organizations are not, by and large, focusing on Lieberman.

It's time they start, because he's the main stumbling block. From the Hartford Courant last week:

A group of religious leaders is still trying to sway U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman to drop his opposition to government run health insurance, also known as public option.

They drew hundreds of supporters to a candlelight vigil outside the senator's Stamford home last month. Nine days later, they gathered outside his Hartford office and delivered hundreds of prayers for health reform with a public option, written by supporters, to Lieberman's staff.

Leaders of the group, called the Interfaith Fellowship for Universal Health Care, met with Lieberman on Monday but said he maintained his opposition to the public option.

Their latest attempt to lobby the senator will appear in newspapers across the state today, an advertisement featuring a letter from Norwalk Rabbi Joseph Ron Fish describing the imperative of multiple faiths to seek the welfare of everyone, particularly the meek and vulnerable. The advertisement includes the signatures of 240 Connecticut religious leaders and will argue that Lieberman must support "real reform" as a matter of conscience, according to the group.

Joe doesn't care what happens in Connecticut, because he probably won't run again. But he does care what the national media thinks about him, and those shallow scribes take his "faith" on faith. I'd love to see one reporter from a major publication or network ask him how to justify his opposition to his bill in light of his faith - and they should have a rabbi who supports health care reform to challenge him.

Norwegianity: By request

The Agonist: Whole Foods and the pox of the hippie businessman

Calculated Risk: 150 US banks on the brink of failure

onegoodmove: Glenn Beck's operation

J.M. Bell: Utah's Democraric party wants us to "celebrate" their Blue Dog, Jim Matheson. Here's an honest answer...

HOLY CRAP: God or Country...You can commit mass murder and still go to heaven...Promoting theocracy...Cowardice among 'Christian' leaders...Stranger in a strange land...Christian hearts neo-nazis....The French Revelation...Crucified...Wile E. Coyote gets saved...An exchange... It's a crime...Stuff we missed at the Creation Museum...

DOWNLOADS: (1165)

PLAYS: (1986)

Embed

It's possible that Brit Hume's statements on Fox News Sunday show he's getting forgetful in his later years. How else to explain it when he so solemnly says Obama can't engage with Iran because of the unrest over the election? After all, he was saying the same thing last year! Via Media Matters:

WALLACE: So, a fiercely fought campaign in Iran; results that show that Ahmadinejad won in a landslide. And now we have people in the streets, supporters of the more moderate challenger, Mousavi, saying that the election was stolen. Brit, where does this leave things inside Iran?

HUME: Well, it looks as if Ahmadinejad will cling to power. He is supported by the key elements of the theocracy that runs that country. Whether these protests will grow or spread is in doubt. They seem to have subsided today after all of the trouble they had yesterday.

I think it leaves Iran about where it was, but showing the world an even clearer picture, as if any were needed, this is basically a police state. And it is difficult, therefore, to see how President Obama's dreams of a more constructive relationship with the powers that be there can go forward, given the fact that this election appears to have been defective if not utterly fraudulent. I mean, after all, Mousavi -- Ahmadinejad is, according to the results, was supposed to have carried Mousavi's hometown by a large margin.

See, Brit's kind of a broken record. Here's what he said in May 2008:

WALLACE: Brit, you made it clear that you think that, on substance, that Obama's wrong. The idea of holding these meetings without preconditions is a bad idea.

Obama goes back and says, "Look -- look at the Bush policy over the last seven years. Has that made Iran weaker or stronger?" Isn't that a fair point on his --

HUME: It's a fair point, but who says it isn't -- who can seriously argue that if President Bush had had some kind of meeting and direct negotiation with [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad that that would have -- would have weakened Iran's aggressive posture in some way?

That makes no sense. In fact, what it would have done would be to elevate this slightly crazy guy who says these unbelievably nutty things to the level of a world statesman, which his present situation does not suggest he is.

Now, some people on the Obama side will say, "Well, you wouldn't really meet with him. You might meet with one of the mullahs." Oh, that would be -- that's a great idea.

I mean, you just stop and think about it. When you sit down at a table with somebody, you expect them to offer you something, but you have to offer them something in return. It's not for the point -- it's not for the purpose of just having a nice chat and getting to know one another.

Why doesn't he just come out and say it? He's against diplomacy, especially when a Democrat does it!

Slate: Why did we get it wrong? Five years on, "liberal hawks" consider their support for the Iraq war.

The Reaction: McCain, public financing, and the law.

The Debatable Land: DMX on BHO and GWB

Scholars and Rogues: Blackwater fades into the men in the Greystone suits

The Satirical Political Report: New leaks on the 'passport' scandals

HOLY CRAP: Blog Against Theocracy this weekend. Some in the Senate want to make it Ten Commandments Weekend...Problem Pastor...Which "men of God" represent political machines?...Divine Wright...Hillary's religious affiliation...It's time to kick Jesus out of politics...Using God as a frontman or doing what Jesus would do?...EXPELLED! A Faith-Based Crossfire...Prescription for disaster...Some evangelical voters beginning to see the light

I have no idea where John Hussein Kennedy's lapel pin is or why there is no flag behind him, sorry.

Coming next Wednesday, March 26 to a theatre near you, a free simulcast featuring Michael J. Fox and Air America's Marc Maron, "Everything you always wanted to know about the separation of Church and State, but were afraid to ask." Cities are listed here.

On topic, Blog Against Theocracy is this weekend. Open thread below...

(click for a larger calendar) Attention all bloggers and those who read 'em:

Iraq War Blogswarm is Wednesday...how-to's, list of participants, etc. here .

Blog Against Theocracy is next weekend, how-to's and details (participants will be linked at the site throughout the weekend) here.

Open Thread below....

Last December, Republicans in Congress introduced a resolution noting the significance of Christmas and the Christian faith, which eventually passed, blurring the lines between church and state -- and they're at it again, attempting to rewrite American history and further the lie that America is a Christian nation.

Via Secular Coalition for America:

Jan. 11 - Flush with last year's success in passing H.Res. 847, "Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian Faith," Christian nationalists -- those who would have the United States be governed as a Christian theocracy -- are pushing H.Res. 888, another resolution which promotes a false and distorted Christian nation reinterpretation of our history. Generally, we do not take action regarding resolutions because they are ceremonial in nature and express the non-binding opinion of one chamber. They do not have the force of law. Read on...

The resolution, which is supported by the likes of Reps Patrick McHenry, John Doolittle and Mean Jean Schmidt, calls for an "American Religious History Week" and rejects any attempt to remove religious messages or teachings from our public buildings and educational resources. There can be no doubt that during an election year, Reps voting against the resolution will be labeled anti-religion, but we can't let them be bullied into signing this flawed resolution that goes against the very principles our country was founded on. Contact your Representatives and tell them to say no to H. Res. 888, (corrected) which further blurs the separation between church and state.