Vermin of society alert

Sounds like he's relying on a new media truism: post something blatantly inflammatory, rack up the page views.

Meh.

I'll save the usual suspects the trouble of defending this. On behalf of them all, the gist of their defense would go something like this: "What Morford said isn't bigoted because it's *true* -- Christians really *are* [insert derogatory judgement here]."

What I'm wondering, however, and what I'd like to have Morford let me know, is why, oh why, Dear Leader Lightworker is spending so much time with His nose stuck up the armpit of society? Could it be -- gasp! -- that He wants *Christians* to vote for Him, too? Could it be -- gasp! gasp! -- that *He* is one of *them*?

Is Morford correct that the American Family Association and its minions are at times obsessively puritanical and just plain goofy? Of course. There's nothing wrong with being critical, and strongly critical, of them. But to write about evangelicals in that kind of language is creepy, and wouldn't be tolerated if it were about any other group in society. Ask yourself: if you were a columnist and referred to Jews, Muslims, Hispanics or [name your minority] as a "rash on the armpit of society," and heaped similar kinds of dehumanizing contempt on them as a group, how likely would you be to get published?

The great thing about Morford is that he is so pretentious and juvenile that everything that he scribbles can be ignored (except for the unintentional humor involved when he thinks he's making a point).

I wasn't sure exactly how I'd feel about the piece just based on your excerpt, Rod, but I really appreciate you posting it. As John E. mentioned, the opening two paragraphs are no more vitriolic than your run-of-the-mill conservative champions, so I don't even have to wonder how likely one would be to get published...very likely is the answer.

And all that follows those two paragraphs is nothing less than a wonderfully scatching, perfectly honest, and deliciously hilarious recap of some of the Christian Right's most recent Greatest Hits. It's all so easy to laugh and so easy to write these outrageous pieces about, because the actions they take and the hate they are so filled with is nothing but laughable and outrageous. These things just seem to write themselves, really.

Brilliant piece, and I'm glad I've got it to forward to friends.

Ask yourself: if you were a columnist and referred to Jews, Muslims, Hispanics or [name your minority] as a "rash on the armpit of society," and heaped similar kinds of dehumanizing contempt on them as a group, how likely would you be to get published?
Posted by: Rod Dreher | July 15, 2008 5:28 PM

Has Beliefnet censored any of your screeds against Muslims yet, Rod?

Driving in the car tonight, I just heard Dr. Dobson interview Tom DeLay and his wife, again. They were initially interviewed last night, talking about DeLay's charity that is building homes for foster families. Sounded like good stuff, and Dobson was fawning over them.

When I got home, I googled DeLay, and read again the details of his perjury case, and all his K-Street and other shady financial and political moves.

Then I read this, in his Wikipedia entry:

In 2003, DeLay set up a charity for abused and neglected children, with part of the funds going to the 2004 GOP convention. The New York Times described it as "aides to Mr. DeLay... acknowledged that part of the money would go to pay for late-night convention parties, a luxury suite during President Bush's speech at Madison Square Garden and yacht cruises. ... "They are using the idea of helping children as a blatant cover for financing activities in connection with a convention with huge unlimited, undisclosed, unregulated contributions," said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a Washington group that helped push through the recent overhaul of the campaign finance laws."

If this is so, and despite the NY Time's credibility issues of late, one would still have to assume that if it weren't there would have been a controversy at them printing it, I gotta ask:

What the heck is Focus on the Family doing associating itself with DeLay and his charity??

Later in my drive, I flip to the "Savage Nation" and hear Mike carrying on about the New Yorker cover, barking about how even the liberal New Yorker thinks Obama's a terrorist. As you predicted Rod, the satire & irony are "apparently" utterly lost on him.

Then he starts carrying on about how Global Warming is a load of crap.

I think Savage is Jewish, but he managed to insert a bit about Eve and original sin in his harangue, saying that this "doomsday talk" is all a fruit of the Fall.

Now I'm a Catholic. When people like Savage associate a doctrine of the Faith with what are essentially partisan talking points, perhaps even fed to him by the RNC, my blood boils.

Now, I oppose "gay marriage," and abortion. I'm a sort of pro-life activist, actually. Five times to the March for Life,
card carrying member of Feminists for Life, etc., etc.

But I can no longer call myself a conservative. In fact, I pine for the Democratic party of old. O where have you gone, Gov. Al Smith?

I think that it is a shame that the word evangelical- which is a perfectly good word, one that I would, in certain ways consider an honor if it were applied to myself - has been degraded by it's association with right wing politics.

Stuff like Revs. Parsley and Hagee, or Lt. Gen. William Boykin appearing in uniform at churches, wrapped in the flag - all of them pushing a Zionist and anti- Islamic foreign policy; Or Catholics like the folks at First Things or Crisis, or Rick Santorum and the likes of EWTN newsman Raymond Arroyo's pushing anti- Iranian and anti- Venezuelan (even anti- Bolivian) foreign policies is egregious, and does no credit to the Faith.

They all would claim that they really believe that Iran or Venezuela pose true military threats to the U.S. I think they really are shilling for our petrol economy, and certain obvious corporate interests. They do little credit to our common Faith.

I've said before here, based on my experiences as an Arabic Linguist in the Army, a grad student in Arabic Studies, and time spent living and traveling amongst Muslims: Most of what ends up in our media about Islam serves as a ridiculous distortion of the overall actuality. Most Muslims are normal people, not extremists. And painting Islam as the civilizational opponent of the West, as AIPAC shills aping Sam Huntington do, is a deliberate tactic designed to fire support for Zionist and oil industry lobby goals & interests.

As a Catholic, I stand with the Holy Father in condemning and opposing such radically unfair caricature, and the violent policies that it sustains.

This Morford dude is a certified troglodyte. But I have to say that he only seems to be dishing more or less the equivalent of what the Hannity's and Coulter's are spewing on the Right.

Let it be known: The Hannitys, O'Reilleys, Parsleys and Hagees of the world do not speak for me. They give the Morfords (and PZ Meyers) of the world comfort by their vulgar bigotry, and that is a travesty.

I despise them.

I just wanted to let y'all know.

Good points you make, Charles. When I read Morford's piece, my response was two-fold: "Geeze, what a hateful, bigoted, self-satisfied jerk"... and... "Too bad those Evangelicals have given him such great material!"

While I disagree with you that Hannity, O'Reilly, and their ilk are anywhere NEAR as vitriolic and scathing as this guy, sadly, I suspect it's due to a lack of wit, eloquence, and intelligence on their part. Ann Coulter would certainly be able to cross swords with Morford in terms of wit AND the piling on of contempt. I don't know who does more damage to Christian conservatives, the well-meaning, not-too-bright bloviators (Hannity's a perfect example) or the razor-tongued fame seekers (like Coulter). I'm a Christian AND a conservative, yet I loathe being associated with any of these folks. Thank God for people like Mark Steyn, Kathleen Parker, Peggy Noonan, Michael Novak, Michael Gerson, Thomas Sowell, and the late WFB, Jr and Tony Snow...

I think that the people who speak most hatefully about evangelicals aren't regarding evangelicalism as an identity that you're born into. Being an evangelical, in the mind of many people who usually go along with identity politics (NOT the Coulter types, in other words), is more like being a Republican than an African American or a homosexual or even an Irish Catholic. I don't blame them for thinking this way, since evangelical identity always does begin with a conscious decision by somebody at some time (that's why Billy Graham's magazine was or is called Decision). I can tell you, though, as a third generation evangelical that this FEELS like an identity I can't change, even when I find my own theology at odds with received doctrine. When I read attacks like this one, I don't feel that it's my theology or politics being criticized--I feel that my family and friends are under attack.