Scumbags of the world, Unite

Fred Phelps Is Coming

Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 10:27:54 AM
Rev. Fred Phelps at one of his protestsThe Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan., plans to stage protests at funerals of victims of the 35W bridge collapse to state that God made the bridge fall because he hates America, and especially Minnesota, because of its tolerance of homosexuality.

The church and its pastor, the Rev. Fred Phelps, have become notorious over recent years for their claim that the attack of 9/11 was an act of God's vengeance and their determination to make that case at the funerals of U.S. soldiers who died in Iraq.

In a press release issued the day after the bridge collapse, the church called for protests at the funerals and outlined its feelings about the relationship between God's plan and the sins of Minneapolis and Minnesota, which it calls the "land of the Sodomite damned."

Reached at the church, Shirley Phelps Roper, who is both the daughter of the pastor and one of the attorneys for the church, said that America, and Minnesota especially, have alienated God by its tolerance for homosexuality, and that the bridge collapse was an act of God's vengeance. She said:

"The bridge stood in place by the word of God and it fell by the word of God...Each of these little events is just a harbinger of the coming destruction of this American experiment. We are delivering the final call of the doomed nation."

She said, as they have done for years, members of the church would stand "lawfully and peacefully on the public right of way" near the funerals and "put in the air words of praying and instruction and warning."

The signs that the protesters will wave will read:

"God cast down the bridge... Thank God for 9/11... America is doomed... God hates fags... God hates fag enablers... God hates Minnesota."

Faith-based initiative backfires

Mental-health and addictions-treatment professionals are wary of spiritual interventions, which they associate with one religious brand: the conservative Christianity of Bush partisans.

By Christopher Ringwald
The Christian Science Monitor
Thursday, August 2, 2007

Once upon a time God, with some federal funding, was going to do so much.

In his early years, President Bush promoted funding for faith-based groups in order to blast social problems with the power of religious belief by unleashing the "armies of compassion." Bush predicted that his faith-based initiative would be his great legacy. And it does send an estimated $2 billion to religious charities.

But the campaign, ignored by Congress and challenged in court, has dropped off the White House talking points. After a brief mention in the 2006 State of the Union address, it was left out entirely this year.

The initiative did leave another legacy: It gave spirituality a bad name in social-service circles. Sad, since spiritual or religious beliefs and practices help millions of people recover from addiction, mental illness and criminality. Unlike other social services that provide a generic good, such as housing, rehab programs often invoke spirituality as the very means of recovery. But after six years of faith-based talk and funding by federal agencies, mental-health and addictions-treatment professionals are wary of spiritual interventions, which they associate with one religious brand: the conservative Christianity of Bush partisans. In reality, the spirituality of treatment and recovery ranges much more widely, from the Twelve Steps of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) to meditation, group confession, or yoga.

Bush wanted to fund social services whose key ingredient is faith, either in the program itself or as part of the treatment. Congress never signed off. So federal officials reached out to church groups and explained how to apply and win federal funding by keeping their services "faith neutral" or free of proselytizing.

And that's the hitch. If a program promotes one faith to its clients, the government cannot fund it given the First Amendment ban on congressional "establishment of religion." But if such a program sheds its religious character to qualify for public money, how important was that faith in the first place?

There is a solution. Addiction and mental-health programs can assess new clients for their spiritual and religious histories and interests and then tailor treatment accordingly. Courts have ruled that so long as a program offers a client "a genuinely independent choice," religious freedom is preserved. In March, the federal Bureau of Prisons recognized this distinction when it revised a proposal for private operators of "life skills" training programs. Those that offer a religious track would now have to provide a secular one as well.

In the addictions field, clinicians seem less and less interested in accommodating spiritual interests, given their discomfort with the current faith-based climate. They also know that judges in New York, Wisconsin, and other states have ruled that publicly-funded treatment cannot push AA only and must offer alternatives. Good idea, except many counselors now skip spiritual topics entirely to avoid any possible church-state conflict. Never mind that most clients are at ease with the topic and, in surveys, say they wish programs attended more, not less, to their spiritual needs.

Given this inattention, the real constitutional danger is denial of that other First Amendment right, free exercise of religion. For example, when psychiatric patients were in institutions, there were chaplains on staff who could attend to their needs. Now, living in group homes or supervised apartments, many clients have no recourse to religious activity, due to the indifference or uncertainty of administrators and staff. In interviews, ex-patients around the country told me they were never asked about their spirituality during years of treatment.

The answer is to guarantee freedom of, as well as from, religion. According to the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations, "Spiritual assessment should, at a minimum, determine the patient's denomination, beliefs, and what spiritual practices are important to the patient." That's often done when you register for heart surgery at the hospital; it's much less likely if you're checking into a psychiatric unit.

Clinicians can easily incorporate spirituality into treatment. Simple, cost-free measures help, such as a list of volunteer visitors from local congregations. Atheists or spiritual-but-not-religious people can be offered alternative assistance. The key is to help people develop the strengths and methods best suited to their history, situation, and choice. Ignoring spirituality is the most dogmatic approach of all.

Christopher Ringwald is a journalist and a visiting scholar at The Sage Colleges. He is author of "The Soul of Recovery" and "A Day Apart."

Are You On the 'Good' Lords Hitlist?

The nuttiness of Christian American, evangelical born-again types, never ceases to amaze me.

This poor misguided boy has listed all kinds or irredeemable folks on his cute sandwich board and it does bear further examination. Sex Addicts and Mormons appear to be at the top of Gods hit list. As recent and not so recent news items tell us, the leaders of a variety of evangelical churches have been caught in a mind boggling array of sexual and drug fueled liaisons, which appear to get forgiven by god and the congregation, far quicker than those who commit the same acts, but are not church leaders or members. These "child molesting homosexuals" get 'cured' at a remarkable rate using only prayer and seemingly endless tears.

Atheists, of which I am one, are tiny by comparison. In fact are the smallest graphic on his board. Witches, racists and liars are a close second.

However, it is the Mormons who for some unknown reason, really get under skin of the (self) righteous. They have been called everything from Devil worshipers, to aliens and coming from a group whose entire belief system is based on ancient mythology, is curious to say the least. A Mormon is now running for Republican President. Given that the Republicans are run by severely right wing Christian fundamentalists, this is causing quite a stir.

IS AMERICA ready for a Mormon president? A few months ago the political commentariat of Washington was convinced that the Mormon former governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, would remain a bit player because of his religion. Mormonism is still seen by some as a cult rather than a mainstream creed, despite its 6 million members in the US alone.

This was despite Romney's matinee-idol looks, sharp intellect, $US300 million ($A342 million) personal fortune and Wall Street background. The last two were acquired while he headed Bain Capital, now one of the five largest US private equity firms.

But Mitt Romney has defied gravity and may well be the dark horse of the 2008 race.

In recent weeks, he has overtaken Senator John McCain — once seen as the strongest Republican candidate, and has been steadily gaining on former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani.

Last week a strategist in the Romney campaign claimed his boss was really the frontrunner in the Republican race.

Mr Romney's strategy — one that has been used successfully in the past — is to win at least one of the early primaries, in Iowa or New Hampshire, giving his campaign the momentum and credibility for the major primaries on February 5 in California and New York.

Winning Iowa worked for Jimmy Carter in 1976. He went from being a non-entity to winning the Democrat nomination. A win over Bob Dole in New Hampshire also revitalised then vice-president George Bush senior's campaign in 1988.

Aside from the polls, Romney appears to be winning the fund-raising race. He has led Republicans in the last two quarters, raising over $US40 million so far.

But the question of his religion continues to dog him just as it did John F. Kennedy, whose Catholicism was seen as a handicap in his presidential run four decades ago.

In a recent Pew survey, 30 per cent of respondents said they would be less likely to vote for a Mormon candidate.

The Romney campaign also tacitly acknowledges it remains an issue. Yesterday, Mr Romney announced he was planning a speech to explain his faith and its role in his life — a task that is fraught with political danger.

Whether that will be sufficient to overcome the prejudice among the evangelical base of the Republican Party, which he is courting, and the broader community, remains to be seen.

A month ago Mormonism came up during one of Mitt Romney's frequent community meetings in Iowa.

Mary Van Steenis, a teacher at a local Christian school, took the microphone at an "Ask Mitt Anything" forum in Pella, Iowa. She wanted him to say where the Book of Mormon would figure in his presidential decision-making. "Where would the Bible be?" she asked. "Would it be above the Book of the Mormon, or would it be beneath it?"

"This is a nation where people come from different faiths, different doctrines, different churches," Mr Romney said.

"But, unlike the people we're fighting over in the Middle East, we don't have a religious test to say who should be able to run our country. It's over there where people say, 'You don't go to my church, you can't run our country.' "

There was resounding applause from his audience.

The role that the Book of Mormon plays in the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints, the church's formal name, is a fundamental difference between Mormonism and other Christian faiths. Mormons believe that the Christian church lost its way in the first millennium.

This wasn't rectified until 1820 when by God's power, Joseph Smith translated the book from an ancient record written on gold plates. Based on these prophesies, Mr Smith founded the Mormon religion, which is said to be the true course of Christianity.

This would be controversial enough but Mormons are still battling to distance themselves from the practice of polygamy, which the church banned more than 100 years ago.

The church's efforts haven't been helped by the HBO series Big Love which portrays a man who belongs to one of the breakaway cults in Utah, dealing with the none-too-pleasant realities of polygamy.