I’m coming to this late, but my friend and fellow CTS seminarian Adam Yates took Rev. Rick Warren to task for his silence on the Ugandan parliament’s proposed legislation to make homosexuality a capital offense.  It’s a good read:

…So Rev. Warren, which will it be? Will you be either cold or hot and renounce your tepidity? A person cannot be a Christian and a coward; the conviction of our faith in Jesus Christ compels us to speak out and stand by our beliefs even when there are consequences for doing so. As Christians, we cannot stand by and keep silence while great evil is underfoot.

Rev. Warren, who has considerable influence with the backers of the “kill gay people” legislation, has finally felt compelled to break his silence, and to his credit, he unequivocally condemns the proposed legislation as “unchristian.”  Whaddya say, Adam, did Rev. Warren end up hot or cold?

I get email from crazy right-wing organizations:

Here is the last call to stand with us and proclaim to our communities that Christmas is not just a winter holiday focused on materialism, but a “holy day” when we celebrate the birth of our Savior. We can do it in a gentle and effective way by wearing the “God’s Gift – Merry Christmas” button. Don’t wait! Place your order by December 1 to receive it before Christmas.

Get that? Christmas is NOT about materialism. So buy our crap!

I met Rod Blagojevich yesterday.

He was coming out of Medici, a Hyde Park restaurant, and me and my CTS buddies Shaun and Adam were heading into Edwardo’s, a pizzeria a couple doors down.  The first thing I noticed was his hair.

As we were telling one another that yes, it really was Rod Blagojevich in the flesh, he caught us staring and came over with a grin, hand outstretched:  ”Hey guys, wanna meet an innocent ex-governor?”  We shook hands, as he gave a mini-version of the same spiel he gives everywhere these days: it’s been difficult, but I can’t wait until everything gets cleared up, and yes, it’s definitely going to be all cleared up.

He asked if we attend the University (of Chicago).  No, says Adam, we go to Chicago Theological Seminary.  Now this seemed to strike a chord.  Eyes widening, he prattled on for a moment about how this experience has really brought him closer to God, you know?  He wants us to know that he’s not just saying that because we’re seminarians, but he really believes it’s true: this is all part of God’s plan.  Maybe so, I think to myself.

Then one of his companions whisked him away to snap a picture with some coeds.  We three seminarians walked into Edwardo’s, and I said, “I don’t think we did a very good job speaking truth to power just then.  Then again, he’s doesn’t exactly have much power these days…”

—

As a post-script, it has since occurred to me that I need to have some quick theology ready for the next time I run into a famous, influential person, fallen or otherwise.  No more getting caught speechless.  What would you say?  (Photo credit: Adam Yates)

This just in my inbox, courtesy of the far-right, anti-choice, anti-marriage, anti-family “American Family Association”:

According to several news agencies, President Barack Obama will rescind the “conscience rule” that protects health workers who refuse to participate in abortions or other medical procedures that go against their moral and religious beliefs. If the rule is rescinded, doctors, nurses and other health care workers could lose their jobs or be punished professionally for adhering to their sincerely held religious convictions. Obama’s proposal would take away their religious freedom…

No. It would take away their option to deny medical care to which their patients have a legal right, on the basis of their personal convictions.

Let me be the first to acknowledge that every job is not for everyone.  I, for instance, would never want to work in a far-right, anti-choice, anti-marriage, anti-family organization like AFA. However, in the event hell freezes over and if I did apply for a job there, should I be allowed to opt out of whatever aspects of that job are objectionable to my religious beliefs? Or should I maybe find another job for which I’m better suited for the tasks? I think the latter.

Guess it’s easier to be a grandstanding Congressional Republican than a Republican governor who must balance actual budgets:

WASHINGTON — President Obama must wish governors could vote in Congress: While just three of the 219 Republican lawmakers backed the $787 billion economic recovery plan that he is signing into law on Tuesday, that trifling total would have been several times greater if support among the 22 Republican state executives counted.

The contrast reflects the two faces of the Republican Party these days.

Leaderless after losing the White House, the party is mostly defined by its Congressional wing, which flaunted its anti-spending ideology in opposing the stimulus package. That militancy drew the mockery of late-night television comics, but the praise of conservative talk-show stars and the party faithful.

< — snip — >

Governors, unlike members of Congress, have to balance their budgets each year. And that requires compromise with state legislators, including Democrats, as well as more openness to the occasional state tax increase and to deficit-spending from Washington.

Funny how the question of stimulus isn’t actually as partisan in real life as the Congressional Republicans would have us believe.  Not sure why, but this reminds me of all those armchair warriors leading up to war in Iraq.

Um.

This, sir, is not what I had in mind when I asked you to resign:

“I intend to stay on the job and I will fight this thing every step of the way,” he said in an appearance at the James R. Thompson Center in downtown Chicago. “I will fight, I will fight, I will fight, till I take my very last breath. I have done nothing wrong.”

Not even close.

The pastoral part of me feels sort of bad…like there’s something seriously wrong here, and he’s obviously not getting the help he needs.  Still holding the governor, his family, and the rest of us Illinoisans in prayer.

Conservative author/commentator/blogger Michelle Malkin has a new post out as part of an ongoing series about persecuted straight people in the aftermath of Prop. 8.  From what I can tell, her modus operandi is to blog about as many hyped-up, isolated instances of anti-Prop. 8 violence, vandalism or harassment as she can.  She does this in order to sell the broader narrative that the good, normal, straight people who supported Prop. 8 are under threat of attack by a vicious mob of crazed queers, who evidently roam the streets looking for church-going grandmothers to kick (and/or sodomize, probably).

Let me be clear:  I deplore individual and mob violence, and categorically condemn the few instances of vandalism to church and/or personal property that has occurred in the aftermath of Prop. 8’s passage.  I have written here and here about our need to maintain respectful dialogue and avoid scapegoating the Mormon Church in particular as we move forward.  But to those on the right who are shocked – shocked! by the huge groups of protesters who are inexplicably pissed that gay people have been relegated to second-class citizenship, get over yourselves.  You made that bed, now we all must sleep in it.

At any rate, Michelle Malkin’s persecuted-majority complex can be ignored easily enough, but she is apparently influential enough to inspire actual violent rage amongst some of her readers.  Check out these comments on just one recent thread of hers:

These comments, coming from just this one post (I’m not sure I have the stomach to comb through looking for more), belie a shocking anti-gay sentiment that is murderous at its core.  It’s amazing what people will say under the guise of Internet anonymity.

Here’s a “note from Michelle” at the onset of the comments section (emphasis mine):

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com’s community of registered readers. Please don’t assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Okay, that’s worth noting.  Nobody should be held directly responsible for comments that others make on your blog, unless you fail to deal with them in an appropriate and timely fashion.  Yet, her aforementioned terms of use clearly state the following (in part, emphasis mine):

…I reserve the right to delete your comments or revoke your registration for any reason whatsoever. Rarely will I do so simply because I disagree with you. I will, however, usually do so if you post something that is, in my opinion, (a) off-topic; (b) libelous, defamatory, abusive, harassing, threatening, profane, pornographic, offensive, false, misleading, or which otherwise violates or encourages others to violate these terms of use or any law, including intellectual property laws; or (c) “spam,” i.e., an attempt to advertise, solicit, or otherwise promote goods and services…

Well, lookit that – Malkin “usually” purges her blog of such sentiments.  Okay, well, it’s been four six ten days since the above comments have sat on her site.  Let’s see how long they remain.

Finally, a note to Michelle, from a fellow Oberlin grad:  it seems to me that if your main thesis is about how out-of-control, violent and crazy those people are out there, then perhaps you should think take care that your words don’t engender out-of-control, violent, crazed people in your own backyard.  And if that happens anyway, then perhaps you should use the means you have already given yourself to purge those sentiments from the website in your name.

 As a voting constituent, I ask that you resign immediately in light of your having been arrested by the FBI on corruption charges.  Healing for both you personally and for the state of Illinois will take a while.  The least you can do for your constituents is allow us the much-needed opportunity to move on.  I hold you, your family, and our great state in prayer.

Very sincerely,

Tom Ryberg

In the wake of the passage of Proposition 8 in California, I join the many who lament the prospect that equal marriage rights for LGBT people will be delayed once again.  I am appalled by the narrow and shallow theological assumptions about marriage and family that the anti-marriage religious folks espouse.  Mostly, I am outraged that God has been co-opted as a means of denying equal, civil rights to my queer friends and family in California and elsewhere.

Nonetheless, the anti-Mormon backlash is unwarranted.  I understand that people are angry – I’m angry – and I am particularly angry at the Catholic, Mormon, and other church leaders who have mounted this vigorous and discriminatory campaign.  However, efforts like this, to single-out and scapegoat Mormons in particular, based on their support of Prop. 8, are unfair – and, I believe, rooted in the oppression that Mormons have historically faced.

More on this soon.  In the meantime, let’s not cede the high road, nor the opportunity to build bridges and coalitions, for the sake of our cause.

In this video, Mike Blejer offers another look at the role that God may have had in this election.  (My take can be found here.) Mike’s a friend of mine from college, and is an emerging comedian in the DC area.

There’s a post over at my favorite conservative blog* calling on the McCain campaign to run “guilt by association” ads against Barack Obama in the swing states.  One at a time, 30 seconds each:  Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, etc.

Frankly, I believe the subtext of such ads is absurd: Obama knows people who are crazy!  Ergo, he would be a bad president. In my comment, I remarked that it’s a shame that this poster apparently doesn’t believe that John McCain can win simply on issues that are legitimate.

Nonetheless, I’m ashamed to admit that this idea did get my creative juices flowing.  Therefore, here’s my suggestion for the Barack Obama/Bill Ayers “guilt by association” ad.  It would be called “TERRORIST LOVER”:

(Ominous Music)

NARRATOR: Barack Hussein Obama knows a guy who is a real bastard.

ON SCREEN: Obama...a real bastard.

NARRATOR: Barack Hussein Obama and aging-hippie terrorist Bill Ayers once served on the board of a charity…AT THE SAME TIME.

ON SCREEN: HOLY F**KING SH*T

NARRATOR: Terrorist Ayers even donated $200 to one of Barack Hussein Obama’s political campaigns once.

ON SCREEN: OMG OMG OMG OMG OMG

NARRATOR: Barack Hussein Obama is a terrorist-lover.

ON SCREEN: Believe it, b*tches.

NARRATOR: It’s time to ask the question: who is the real Barack Hussein Obama?

ON SCREEN: ANSWER: somebody who wants to bomb your house.

* patterico.com really is my favorite conservative blog.  It’s the only one I ever read.  It takes a non-religious, reason-based, conservative approach to the issues.  Patterico and I disagree on basically everything (though he actually does support same-sex marriage, which is cool).  Nonetheless, as a rule, the front-page posters are reasonable, respectful, and (somewhat) post-partisan, which is commendable.  Also, they practice free speech over there, allowing and encouraging dissenting opinions to be expressed in good faith dialogue (though such will be roundly challenged by the regulars).  Suffice to say it’s a good site for another view.

The Washington Post has an interesting graphic which gives a good visual for both McCain and Obama’s tax priorities.  It’s easy to see the difference between the two:  for McCain, the more money you already have, the more you’ll get back from the government.  The less you have, the less you’ll get.  For Obama, those who have the least receive the most tax support proportionally:

These figures are based on the Tax Policy Center’s analysis of the candidate’s proposals.  (The full report is available on pdf here.)

What’s particularly striking to me is what this says about each candidate’s priorities.  John McCain evidently believes that those who have the most should be given the most back – both in terms of actual dollars and percentages of tax decreases.  Barack Obama has the exact opposite philosophy here:  those who have the least actually get the highest percentages back.

As a Christian first, but also as an American who believes in fairness and equal opportunity, I frankly can’t understand where John McCain is coming from.  The idea of giving the most to those who already have the most, and giving the least to those who have the least is completely backward. It belies the interests of economic greed to which McCain is beholden.  It is out of touch not only with the needs of real people, but with the biblical idea of whom in society should we really be helping.  If this is an example of how John McCain’s values translate to policy, he should be opposed not only on political but moral grounds.

UPDATE: Commenter cheyenne alerts us to another chart of the same data, created by chartjunk.  This one offers a visual that corresponds to the size of the U.S. population.

Some of you may be wondering why I haven’t posted recently.  That’s understandable.  Here’s why: this blog has been suspended so it can go to the Senate for the first time since April 8th and work on the economic crisis.

—

(Note: this joke plagiarized directly from Muzikal203’s comment on the Great Orange Satan.)

A couple of conservative news sources are reporting that a college student in Florida is being threatened in this life and beyond for having removed a consecrated wafer from a Catholic Church.  It first was placed into Webster Cook’s mouth during Communion and at some point thereafter, he decided to take it out.  Allegedly, a church official then tried to pry the wafer out of his hands, and Cook responded by putting it in a Ziploc bag and leaving the premises.  He voluntarily returned it later on in the week, after receiving death threats and assurances of eternal damnation.

Bill Donahue from the Catholic League is pissed:

“For a student to disrupt Mass by taking the Body of Christ hostage – regardless of the alleged nature of his grievance – is beyond hate speech. That is why the [university] administration needs to act swiftly and decisively in seeing that justice is done. All options should be on the table, including expulsion.”

And, a spokesperson from the local diocese is calling it a hate crime:

“We don’t know 100 percent what Mr. Cook’s motivation was…however, if anything were to qualify as a hate crime, to us this seems like this might be it.”

Hmm.  Well, that would seem difficult, since a hate crime first and foremost is defined as “…a criminal offense…“  Oops.  So much for that.  It also must be “…committed against a person, property, or society that is motivated, in whole or in part, by the offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin.” This will also be difficult to prove, given that Cook is Catholic.

Here are my immediate thoughts:

1. How is this possibly considered a hate crime?  There’s no crime, and no evidence of bias.  These accusers don’t even seem to know what constitutes a hate crime.
2. There are some really interesting Christological issues here, especially considering the traditional Catholic view of transubstantiation.  If the consecrated bread-become-body of Jesus leaves the church, what happens to it, theologically speaking?  Surely this is written somewhere?
3. My theology of communion really privileges the sovereignty of God.  In my view, mere humans do not have the power to make – or break – the sanctity of the Eucharist.  Either Jesus will be present to us in the breaking of bread and sharing of the cup, or not – but I absolutely do not believe that humans have the power to defile that which God has made holy.  That limits the power of God too much for me.
4. If this is a hate crime, what’s the crime?  If this is to be viewed as Cook “stealing” a Catholic artifact (the consecrated wafer), at what point does the bread/wine become transferred to the parishioner?
5. It may go against Catholic doctrine, but is it also a “hate crime” or “hate speech” for a non-Catholic to take Communion at a closed Catholic table?  I mean, she would likewise be “stealing” a consecrated Catholic artifact too, if that is indeed the root of the problem.
6. Bottom line: Jesus is a big boy.  If he is so vulnerable that improper handling of the consecrated elements pose a viable threat to his sovereignty, than perhaps Cook should get expelled.  But if the risen Christ is, as I suspect, actually strong enough to survive this affront…perhaps the local (and national) Catholic authorities are going a little overboard here, no?

Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the man suspected of masterminding the attacks of 9/11, doesn’t want an American attorney, because in his mind, the US supports same-sex marriage.

”I will not accept anybody, even if he is Muslim, if he swears to the American Constitution,” he said, vowing to follow Islamic shariya and scorning the U.S. Constitution “because it allows for same sexual marriage.”

Clearly, it is our patriotic duty to insist that American gays and lesbians be allowed to marry.  I can see the slogans already: “Piss off a terrorist: support gay marriage!”

This video, called Battle at Kruger, is absolutely unbelievable. I don’t have anything useful to say about it, other than that it should be viewed by everybody. This testifies to the power of one individual with a camera, in the right place at the right time.

If you get email and have a crazy relative or friend, you’ve probably already heard that Obama is MUSLIM and that he goes to a RACIST CHURCH and that his (former) pastor, Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright is a BLACK SEPARATIST.

From what I can tell, these emails can be summarized thusly: OMG OMG OMG BLACK SCARY MUSLIM OBAMA SEPARATIST SCARY BLACK OBAMA MUSLIM BLACK HUSSEIN TERRORIST WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE NOOOOOOOOOOO.

But that’s absurd, you might say. Obama is Christian, his church isn’t racist, and Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright is a Christian minister, who has never advocated black separatism. Yeah, but seriously – in the land of anonymous email, who cares? Why get bogged down worrying about truth or integrity when the best fallacious smears only take 4 easy steps:

1. Take a single shred of truth: Obama’s middle name is Hussein
2. Introduce racist innuendo: Evil Muslim Dictator Saddam’s Hussein’s last name is Hussein!!!
3. Arrive at your new conclusion: Holy Balls, Barack Obama is Muslim!
4. Use subtle clues instead of stating this directly: “Hey guys, did you see that new Barack HUSSEIN Obama ad?”

And you’re done! Now, wasn’t that simple? Now, just be sure to foward this to 4,000 of your close, personal friends.

—

P.S. The next time you get one of these aforementioned lying emails, please do me a favor. Consider hitting “Reply all” and sending back the following: “OMG OMG OMG BLACK SCARY MUSLIM OBAMA SEPARATIST SCARY BLACK OBAMA MUSLIM BLACK HUSSEIN TERRORIST WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE NOOOOOOOOOOO.”

Just think how much better you’ll feel.

Republican Mike Huckabee has apparently convinced himself that either (a) everybody else is stupid or (b) nobody cares if he lies.

At issue is his crazy denial that his feel-good Christmas television ad, in which he shamelessly exploits his Christianity, intended to show a giant, glowing, white cross in the background–that even moves through the screen during the commercial. (You be the judge. It ain’t rocket science.)

Now if, as he claims, this was completely unforeseen, Huckabee should fire his ad people immediately. Visual arts pros that can’t even recognize major Christian iconography? For shame!

On the other hand, some of us moonbats can actually imagine that a freakin’ former Southern Baptist pastor might indulge in a little Christian pandering now and then. You tell me which is the likelier scenario–nobody noticed, or it was intentional?

Here’s the thing: just as with the Spirit Air/MILF stuff down below, I’m not condemning the content of these ads, but the damned lies being told in the cover-up. Especially coming from a (former) man of the cloth, that’s just crappy.

Plus, as a Christian myself, that’s not very courageous. If Huckabee wants to take that route, why not claim the cross proudly, instead of hiding it? It’s not like the absurd denials are helping him save face. Furthermore, I’ll bet some Christian voters think he’s being a little spineless right now–like me, though I’m less concerned about his relationship with God (his business) than his relationship with the truth (America’s business).

Apparently having nothing more important to do, Congress decided to pass a dubious resolution that was intended by its main proponent to “honor Christmas and the Christian faith”.

Borrowing on rhetoric from Bill O’Reilly and his allegations of a left-wing “War on Christmas”, due to folks saying “Happy Holidays” in public places instead of “Merry Christmas–seriously–the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Steve King from Iowa, had this to say:

I recognized that we’re a Christian nation founded on Christian principles, and we’re coming up to Christmastime. … It’s time we stood up and said so, and said to the rest of America, Be who you are and be confident. And let’s worship Christ and let’s celebrate Christmas for the right reasons. (source)

But if this shameless pandering to the religious right isn’t bad enough, Rep. King has the nerve to go on TV and wag his finger at those who had the courage to stand up to this nonsense.

Well, two can play that game. Now, I’m on TV too (and by “TV,” I mean Youtube). Check it out! (For those of you who can’t get the link to work, or are interested in a synopsis of what I had to say, see below.)

Congressman King is accusing those who voted against his “Christians are awesome” resolution of assaulting Christianity. All right, sir, you have my attention.

With over 75% of Americans self-identifying as Christian, and over 92% of Congress identifying as Christian, Congress thinks that it is a Biblically sound idea to pass a self-congratulatory resolution, saying how awesome Christianity is (really, how awesome they are, since 92% of Congress is Christian).

What I would like to know is, whether these Congressional Christians even read their Bibles? For if they did, they would be hard-pressed to find justification for using the name of Jesus for this level of political pandering.

Let’s remember how Jesus responded to the hypocrites who were praying loudly so that all could see them in their vanity: “And whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, so that they may be seen by others…” (Matthew 6.5)

So back then, we’ve got hypocrites committing acts of religious pandering for the sake of attention. And today we have…hypocrites committing acts of religious pandering for the sake of attention. Remember, this is a Congress who:

• can’t stop the war

• can’t fix education

• can’t even provide health care to uninsured children (Hello?! what would Jesus do?)

But they CAN pass a masturbatory, non-binding resolution that tells the world how special Christianity is. What would Jesus do indeed.

So is there actually an “assault on Christianity?” I suppose I could agree with that. However, it comes in the form of politicians who pander to Christians with nonsense like this–instead of following the example of Jesus when it comes time to provide actual help to the people who need it–instead of these symbolic resolutions.

As a Christian, let me be the first to say, Happy Holidays.

Spirit Air, an airline company that I’m pretty sure I’ll be ignoring from here on, has a new marketing campaign: “M.I.L.F.” Ostensibly, it stands for “More Islands, Low Fares.” But ask anybody under the age of 40, and “M.I.L.F.” has another meaning: Mom I’d Like [to] F–k. See the picture to get a better view of what I’m talking about. The reclining woman below appears for less than a second before morphing into generic islands.

But when people discovered this pathetic excuse for an ad and complained about it, Spirit Air’s response was to outright lie about it! From ABC:

[Spirit Air Director of Communications] Arbelaez said that Spirit’s senior vice president of pricing is a British citizen who was unfamiliar with the MILF terminology and that the airline is not trying to offend customers.

Riiiiight.

Okay, here’s the thing. It’s one thing to have disgusting, sexist, cheap, and tawdry advertising for your company or product. The point of this post is not to condemn that sort of advertising outright, though it should be condemned. The point here is to call Spirit Air out for having the audacity to actually lie about their efforts here. For some inexplicable reason, they are claiming that this clear, deliberately-sexist advertisement was entirely accidental.

Bullshit. Sorry, Spirit Air, you can’t have it both ways. Engage in the objectification of women for your advertising purposes, and be condemned rightly for it–but don’t try and insult the intelligence of the rest of us in the process.

To contact Spirit Air and tell them to ‘go MILF themselves’:

Spirit Airlines
2800 Executive Way
Miramar, FL 33025
ATTN: Corporate Consumer Affairs

Update: Commenter Charlie points out that the new ad campaign is “Barely Legal.”  Complete with a classy emphasis on 18 year old models cent fares.

Wow, that’s classy.   For a good sense of what Spirit Air is trying to associate themselves with, type “barely legal 18″ into Google and see what happens…

Today President Bush vetoed a spending bill that would provide roughly $150.7 billion to the Departments of Education, Labor, Health, and Human Services. But he signed a spending bill that provides $450.9 billion to the Pentagon.

A little later in the day, without a trace of irony, he gave an economics speech that compared Congress to a “teenager with a new credit card.”

So let me get this straight:

(reckless teenager) = ($$) x (jobs, education, and health care)

(responsible grownup) = ($$$$$$) x (war)

Hmm…most kids I know can figure out what’s wrong with withholding funds for jobs, education and health care while giving half a trillion dollars to the Pentagon. I guess I’d rather have a teenager with a credit card in charge of the national budget than an adult with completely nutty priorities.

Far right Christian extremist Pat Robertson has endorsed Rudy Giuliani, despite ideological differences such as Giuliani’s support for gay rights and abortion. Robertson certainly deserves credit for being willing to break rank from other prominent conservatives who threatened to form a 3rd party if a pro-choice Republican (read: Giuliani) gets the nod. But why Giuliani? Here’s what Robertson had to say:

Rudy Giuliani took a city that was in decline and considered ungovernable and reduced its violent crime, revitalized its core, dramatically lowered its taxes, cut through a welter of bureaucratic regulations, and did so in the spirit of bipartisanship which is so urgently needed in Washington today.

Maybe. However, Robertson gets it wrong so much of the time that I’m having a hard time swallowing this. (Also, it’s a little hilarious to hear Pat Freakin’ Robertson call for bipartisanship in Washington…) So I find myself questioning the motives of one who is so virulently anti-gay, anti-woman, and anti-democracy.

You see, Pat Robertson has already stated that he believes that only Christians and Jews are fit to govern America. Consider this in light of the fact that Robertson views Mormonism as an un-Christian cult, and maybe the simplest answer is also the best one: Robertson doesn’t believe that Romney, a Mormon, is as fit to govern as Giuliani, a Catholic.

What if Mitt Romney happened to be an evangelical Christian, remaining identical in every other respect of his life and political career? Who would Robertson support then? Does anybody actually believe that anti-gay and anti-abortion Pat F. Robertson would’ve endorsed Giuliani over Romney? Yeah…me neither.

I should hasten to add that as Republicans go, I’ve got no particular problem with Giuliani or Romney, in and of themselves. However, I do have a big problem with religious discrimination, especially in light of Galatians 3.28: There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. I hope Pat Robertson has had a legitimate change of heart and is simply supporting Giuliani for reasons of policy, despite all evidence to the contrary.

Apparently, there are no homosexuals in Iran. Riiiight.

But if true, it’s too bad. Their musical theater would really suck…