Republican Insanity Is Increasing

As noted many times, I am a former Republican from a family of now former Republicans.  Indeed, my maternal grandparents were loyal Republicans long before many of today's most loud mouthed GOP demagogues were even born.  Yet I get incredibly vile e-mails and comments on posts - which I do not publish since I don't wish to give virulent haters a platform - which call me a flaming liberal and that are filled with four letter words and all kinds of explicatives.  To my mind it is all further proof that the Republican Party base is becoming even more deranged, delusional and untethered from objective reality.  The GOP base learned nothing form the 2012 debacle. A piece in The Daily Beast makes the same argument.  Here are highlights:

If you’d asked me six months ago whether the Republican Party would manage to find a few ways to sidle back toward the center between now and 2016, I’d have said yes. But today, on the basis of evidence offered so far this year, I’d have to say a big fat no. With every passing month, the party contrives new ways to go crazier. There’s a lot of time between now and 2016, but it’s hard to watch recent events without concluding that the extreme part of the base is gaining more and more internal control.

Let’s start with this recent party meeting in Boston. As with the previous winter meeting, the Republican National Committee was trying to spin inclusiveness as the theme and goal. But what real news came out of the meeting? Go to the RNC website. Before you even make it to the home page, you’ll be presented with a petition imploring you to “Hold the Liberal Media Accountable!” and “Tell CNN and NBC to drop their planned programming promoting Hillary Clinton or no 2016 debates!” 

As an “issue,” this is totally absurd. How many voters are going to walk into the booth on Election Day 2016, if Clinton is the Democratic nominee, thinking, “Gee whiz, I never cared that much for Hillary until I saw that wonderful biopic about a year ago, which is what sealed it for me!” Ridiculous. Besides, has anyone stopped to wonder whether Clinton herself wants these movies aired?

The driver is hatred of all news organizations that aren’t Fox News, which in turn reflects hatred of reality itself, hatred of the unhappy truth that there are facts in this world that can’t be neatly arranged behind a worldview of rage and racial resentment. Soon enough, the GOPers are going to get themselves to the point where the only debates are on Fox, moderated, as Reince Priebus suggested last week, by the likes of Sean Hannity. The Pravda-ization of the party, a process that’s been under way since Fox first took to the air back in 1996, will be complete. The kinds of questions candidates will likely be asked on Fox, and the kinds of answers they’ll know will be expected of them, will drive the party even further rightward.

 Now let’s turn to Congress. Six months ago, I might have thought the party could roll with immigration reform. In truth, I was a skeptic from day one, let the record show. But there were plenty of days when I doubted myself. Not much doubt today. . . . The GOP will do the bidding, to whatever it extent it can, of the extremists.

Conservative Myra Adams wrote on the Beast over the weekend that she didn’t see how a Republican could get to 270 electoral votes in 2016. She’s correct about that, but she may be wrong in assuming that most of these people even care anymore if they win. I think many would prefer to win, sure, all things being equal, but only on their narrow terms. And if they don’t, there is great glory in losing because of principle, and then once again purifying the party of its sellouts and squishes like Petelos. How much worse can they get? A lot.

Not to sound like a broken record, but as a former GOP City Committee member, I track the start of the GOP's descent into insanity to when the Christofascists were welcomed into the GOP out of short term expediency with no thought to what the long term damage would be.  By definition, the Christofascists are driven by religious extremism and a deliberate rejection of modernity and knowledge in favor of the half baked writings of ignorant nomads from 3000 years a go.  The handwriting was on the wall, but the GOP establishment refused to see it.

Read More

New Book: The Most Controversial Claims About Jesus

The Internet has been inundated with coverage of the idiocy of a Fox News religion correspondent who attacked the author of a new book, Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth because the author is Muslim and, according to the dim witted Lauren Green, therefore incapable of a balanced scholarly work on the Christ story.   As this blog has repeatedly addressed, the truth is that we know little or nothing about the real Christ - if he even actually existed - and that the leaders of the early Church re-wrote and revised and edited what became the New Testament to fit their agenda and the quest for power and control.   A piece in The Daily Beast looks at the new book and some of the assertions that will drive the Christofascists bonkers - not that they aren't already insane.  Here are some highlights:

The clip became an Internet sensation over the weekend, with BuzzFeed among the first to link to the segment on Saturday with the headline: “Is This The Most Embarrassing Interview Fox News Has Ever Done?” New Yorker TV critic Emily Nussbaum tweeted that, indeed, the interview was “absolutely demented,” while The American Conservative called it “cringe-worthy,” “ignorant” and “breathtakingly incurious,” pointing out that Green showed “zero interest in the book’s argument or content.”

What is Aslan saying about Jesus? How different is the historical Jesus of Nazareth from Christ the religious figure? What were the precise events that led to his crucifixion? And what about those three kings who traveled to Bethlehem to meet the son of God?

Here are the most controversial claims from Zealot:

JESUS WASN'T BORN IN BETHLEHEM  - Few argue that The Nativity is not a lovely story, especially when it’s acted out in church Christmas pageants, complete with Mary and Joseph, and three gift-bearing kings, all in Bethlehem to coo over the newborn son of God. But Aslan writes that this story is simply a magical tale. It appears in the gospels of Matthew and Luke but it’s not mentioned by any of the other apostles. (“The name Bethlehem does not appear anywhere else in the entire New Testament, save for a single verse in the gospel of John.”)

Jesus the historical figure was more likely born and raised in Nazareth—an off-the-map village in Galilee, according to Aslan. “That he came from this tightly enclosed village of a few hundred impoverished Jews may very well be the only fact concerning Jesus’s childhood about which we can be fairly confident,”

JOHN THE BAPTIST WAS ONCE BIGGER THAN JESUS - The apostles reinterpreted John the Baptist’s (in)significance in the gospels to make Jesus seem like the one and only messiah, according to Aslan. The scholar Josephus, who witnessed the destruction of Jerusalem, writes in Antiquities that John was put to death by Antipas, a 1st-century ruler of Galilee and Perea, because he was becoming too popular due to his promises of a new world order—the Kingdom of God. “Many assumed he was the messiah,” writes Aslan, though you would never know it from reading the gospel.

According to Aslan: “The problem for the early Christians was that any acceptance of the basic facts of John’s interaction with Jesus would have been a tacit admission that John was, at least at first, a superior figure...After all, who baptized whom?”

JESUS WAS A ZEALOT REVOLUTIONARY - The real Jesus was more like Che Guevara and history’s other famous rabble rousers than the passive, love-thy-neighbor Christ figure in the bible. It’s not clear why Jesus left Nazareth for Judea and John the Baptist, but when he returned, his transformation from craftsman to self-declared prophet was not entirely well-received. So he established his ministry in Capernaum, a nearby fishing village, which - like Nazareth - was divided between the haves and the have-nots. The Capernaum have-nots did not know about Jesus’s past life as a craftsman and they were desperate for a better life.

Aslan writes that Jesus targeted “those who found themselves cast to the fringes of society, whose lives had been disrupted by the social and economic shifts taking place throughout Galilee.”

HE WAS CRUCIFIED FOR EFFECTIVELY COMMITTING A CAPITAL OFFENSE  -  When Jesus marched into Jerusalem around 30 C.E., flanked by a chorus of followers singing, “Blessed be the coming kingdom of our father David!” he was announcing himself to the city as the messiah and ancestor of David, King of Judah. Then, like a true revolutionary, he forced the city’s vendors out of the temple’s public courtyard--a “blatantly criminal act,” Asman writes. “After all, an attack on the business of the temple is akin to an attack on the priesty nobility, which, considering the temple’s tangled relationship with Rome, is tantamount to attack on Rome itself.”

With that sweeping gesture, Jesus’s message was simple: the land didn’t belong to Rome but to God, and it was time for Caesar to concede power to Hossana, the real King of Jews. This was sedition and the punishment was crucifixion. The New Testament says Jesus’s crucifixion was a cruelly special punishment for a man who sacrificed himself for humanity’s sins, but history tells us that he was no different from “any other criminal who hangs on a cross.”

JESUS DIDN'T CONDONE VIOLENCE, BUT HE DID NOT AVOID IT AT ALL COSTS EITHER -  Jesus’s aggressive “cleansing” of Jerusalem’s temple is unlike the peacemaking Christ we know from the Bible--the one who invariably loved his neighbors and “turned the other cheek” in the face of violence. For starters, there is no evidence that these references are symbolic to all of mankind, but rather that he was speaking only about his Jewish neighbors and enemies.

Add to this that his entire ministry was constructed around the promise--specifically his promise—of God’s sovereignty on earth, and we can only assume that Jesus expected bloodshed before this foundation for a new world order was laid, Aslan writes. Why else would he have warned his disciples that they, too, would “take up his cross” if they chose to follow him? As Aslan points out, his attempt to hide his “messianic secret” about the Kingdom of God from everyone but his disciples indicates that he knew what was to come--that what he envisioned was “so radical, so dangerous, so revolutionary, that Rome’s only conceivable response would be to arrest and execute them all for sedition.”

What's remarkable is that the book underscores how little is really known about Christ.  Yet wars have been fought and countless individuals have died because of a religion based on someone we know almost nothing about historically.  It's all based on the much forged and re-edited Bible.   Recognizing this truth, of course, would cause the Christofascists' house of cards faith to utterly collapse.  We can expect more attacks on Aslan and others who rock their sinking boat.

Read More