Conservative tantrums

Why is it that conservative pundits have an uncanny knack of throwing sociopathic hissy fits when things don't go their way? I can understand anger. I can understand vehement disagreement. But the need to wish not just misfortune but death and misery on the people who disagree with you? Some people weren't taken to the woodshed enough as a child.

First Bill O'Reilly has a vengeful conniption over San Francisco's ballot measures:

"And if Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead."

Yep. That's compassionate conservatism all right.

Then Pat Robertson seems to all but delight at the possibility of divine retribution, wishing disaster on fellow Americans who voted out the absurdity of Intelligent Design and turning God into an agent of Brother Pat's political ideology:

"I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city".

"And don't wonder why He hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for His help because he might not be there"

You do not speak for God, Pat. Don't embarass yourself any further by thinking that you do.

Pat goes on to say in response to criticisms about the above statement:

"I was simply stating that our spiritual actions have consequences and it's high time we started recognizing it. God is tolerant and loving, but we can't keep sticking our finger in His eye forever. If they have future problems in Dover, I recommend they call on Charles Darwin…maybe he can help them."

I wonder how 'tolerant and loving' a God is that would abandon men, women and children in a disaster just to dish out a little divine payback. Over a school board policy? Are you fucking kidding me?

And here I was told Intelligent Design wasn't a Christian evangelical apparatus. Seems Pat Robertson and God himself would disagree. Hmmmm.

Grow up, gentlemen. The world is FULL of disappointment.

Just the beginning...

So with all the votes finally tallied today, it looks like Democrats have something to celebrate. Not just for the victories scored in these elections, but for what it portends for Democrats in 2006. Let's face it, this is the first break of light in a much bigger morning. And if Republicans aren't shitting themselves right now, they damn well should be. The times they are-a changin'.

I won't beat the dead horse that the GOP have made for themselves. At least not today. But I will say this... the GOP has fundamentally mismanaged and overinterpreted prior elections, turning them into the flimsy "mandate" and "capital" they've squandered so frivolously. Here's to hoping it'll separate the core conservatives from the theocratic chaff. As I would much rather have a rational government of intelligent opposition than the polar idiots that have run things thus far. Kick the fundies to the curb, gentlemen. And get back to the business of government, not electioneering.

One thing that I found humorous about last night's elections though, other than the first thumps against the GOP in Virginia, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maine and California, is the kind of goofy fringe extremism on both sides of the political aisle.

I want to clarify anyone who isn't already aware... I am not a hardcore leftist. At least not in all issues. And in the case of last night, there's one referendum I don't support. I strongly disagree with the San Francisco Handgun Ban. For no greater reason (and I've had long devil advocacy arguments with gun-owning family members and friends about gun control issues such as this one) than the fact its constitutionality simply does not hold up. No liberal worth his salt can argue and defend the constitutional protections allowed to us and then attempt to argue as strict a gun control law as San Francisco's. It cannot be done with any intellectual integrity. The 2nd Amendment either exists in validity or it does not.

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." And so, just as Texas has overstepped its constitutional bounds (I'll address that in just a minute) so too has San Fran.

Now, as for Texas... that state's ban on gay marriage is again indicative of a knee-jerk kind of demagoguery, one that will not stand in the years to come and certainly not in the face of federal authority. The 14th Amendment is perfectly clear about this:

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Two extremist positions. Neither of them constitutionally compatible.

But all in all, it's been a great resurrection of balance and rational government. Well worth celebrating from Democrats and much moping and second-guessing on the part of Republicans. And it's just the beginning.

Tax exempt status only for conservative churches

First comes the anger:

Ten teachers of Christian ethics at leading seminaries and universities have written a letter to President Bush criticizing his campaign's outreach to churches, particularly its effort to gather church membership directories.

The Aug. 12 letter asked Bush to "repudiate the actions of your re-election campaign, which violated a fundamental principle of our democracy." It also urged both presidential candidates to "respect the integrity of all houses of worship."

The Bush-Cheney campaign has defended its outreach as a "peer-to-peer" effort rather than an attempt to enlist churches in partisan electioneering, which would violate Internal Revenue Service rules. Bush supporters also charge that some African American churches routinely support Democratic candidates.

Then comes the rage:

The Internal Revenue Service has warned one of Southern California's largest and most liberal churches that it is at risk of losing its tax-exempt status because of an antiwar sermon two days before the 2004 presidential election.

On June 9, the church received a letter from the IRS stating that "a reasonable belief exists that you may not be tax-exempt as a church … " The federal tax code prohibits tax-exempt organizations, including churches, from intervening in political campaigns and elections.

The letter went on to say that "our concerns are based on a Nov. 1, 2004, newspaper article in the Los Angeles Times and a sermon presented at the All Saints Church discussed in the article."

The IRS cited The Times story's description of the sermon as a "searing indictment of the Bush administration's policies in Iraq" and noted that the sermon described "tax cuts as inimical to the values of Jesus."

And if anyone thinks the issue with All Saint Church is a fluke, I'd recommend reading this article as well, in which a Democratic leaning church was threatened by the IRS, but the local conservative Christian church was left alone.

This kind of partisan bullying by an arm of the government is disgustingly transparent. See here, here and here for just a few more examples of conservative Christian electioneering that have resulted in not one examination of tax exempt status by the IRS. Not one.

End sum: Conservative Christian churches and their political endorsement of certain candidates or issues are deemed a-okay by the IRS. But liberal or Bush-critical churches run the risk of having their tax exemption status scrutinized and possibly revoked.

I call shenanigans.