NO-FUN PROM LEADS TO CATHOLIC SCARE TACTICS IN PITTSBURGH

According to Pittsburgh City Paper, Oakland Catholic High School, an all-girl parochial institution, may hold the least-attended school proms ever held anywhere. In 2008 approximately 100 couples attended the official school function. Last year, only 20 couples attended from a school of about 600 students.

School officials insist on approving prom dresses in advance. They cannot be too short, too low cut or expose too much of the wearer's back. I can't imagine that parents who pay $10,000/year in tuition for their daughters to learn to "lead lives of faith, courage, and commitment" ---according to the school's mission ---would permit their Catholic daughters to wear anything far from appropriate.

In addition, strict dance-floor policing can result in an attendee being assigned to a corner for a timeout.

As a result, for the past four years, students have held an alternative dance, commonly referred to as the "anti-prom."  It is supervised by parents and police, but no one ends up in a corner like a naughty toddler.

Now, school officials have upped the "anti," so to speak. Faculty have been instructed to withdraw letters of recommendation to colleges for students who attend the alternative event or who complain about the official prom on social-networking sites.


Students have reported being told they will not be able to attend graduation if they attend the alternative dance.

Punishing students for an event not connected with the school is unethical and mean-spirited. Students who have worked for four long years toward graduation and done the work necessary to be admitted to college should not be punished for attending an event simply because it is not sanctioned by the strict Catholic school.

As a result of the school's official scare tactics (reportedly posted at www.oaklandcatholic.org, although I could not find them posted there) the organizers of the alternative event are calling their own dance the "Party of the Year," encouraging students to drop the "anti-prom" term, and scheduling the event for after graduation so that seniors will not be barred from graduation ceremonies. Students from other schools have been invited to attend so it doesn't seem so much of an act of defiance against Oakland Catholic.

Students lament that they need to resort to a substitute prom, but as one student said, school officials "treat [high school] kids like they are in kindergarten."

In my experience, being overly strict does not instill self-discipline ---after all, the strict discipline is being mandated from outside of the self.  Instead, it results in resentment and rebellion.

Perhaps the students have started to think for themselves, and definitely to think outside of the strict, narrow confines of their church's box. I can't help but believe church and school officials are more afraid of that than of a few low-cut prom dresses.

RELIGION AND POLITICS, STEPSISTERS SINCE 1980

During the windup to the 2008 election in 2007, George Mason University's History News Network reported:

The 2008 presidential campaign is striking in that it seems to be nearly as much about religion as politics.

Mitt Romney’s much-discussed speech on faith and politics is just one recent example of a trend that has stretched throughout the campaign and across both sides of the partisan aisle. During the seemingly endless string of debates, candidates have pondered what Jesus would do about capital punishment, raised their hands to deny evolution, considered whether America is a Christian nation, described the power of prayer, and eagerly affirmed that yes, the Bible is indeed the word of God.

(Note: all text in this shade of blue in this post designates direct quotes from the article.)

Despite a Pew Research Center study showing that a growing number of Americans  say there is too much religious talk in politics, not much has changed in four years. Four of the recent Republican candidates claimed that God told them to run for office: Bachmann, Cain, Perry, Santorum. Apparently, God didn't tell them they would win the nomination. At times, Santorum sounded more like he was running for Pope than for President.

Republicans seem to wear religion on their sleeves more than their Democratic counterparts, but the Dems aren't blameless. Clinton made speeches in churches more often than Reagan and the two Bushes combined, although those Republicans spoke more often in front of large religious organizations.

In 1960, Kennedy found it necessary to make a speech assuring the American public that he believed firmly in the separation of church and state and, therefore, would not allow his religion to interfere with his duties as president. This is the speech that Santorum claimed made him want to throw up.

What happened between 1960 and today? When did this change? 

According to the History News Network:

...It all began on July 17, 1980.

That evening, Ronald Reagan accepted the Republican nomination for president. Fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals, newly mobilized through organizations such as the Moral Majority, had found their man.

For the previous four years this constituency had tried to like Jimmy Carter who, after all, was an openly “born again” Christian. But Carter had disappointed the political faithful with his insufficiently aggressive foreign policy, support for Roe v. Wade, and general unwillingness to make his faith demonstrably public. Indeed, Carter in his nomination acceptance addresses in 1976 and 1980 made no mention of God whatsoever.

...Approaching the end of his 1980 acceptance speech, Reagan departed from his prepared remarks: “I have thought of something that is not part of my speech and I’m worried over whether I should do it.” He paused, then continued:

“Can we doubt that only a Divine Providence placed this land, this island of freedom, here as a refuge for all those people in the world who yearn to breathe freely: Jews and Christians enduring persecution behind the Iron Curtain, the boat people of Southeast Asia, of Cuba and Haiti, the victims of drought and famine in Africa, the freedom fighters of Afghanistan and our own countrymen held in savage captivity.”

Reagan went on, “I’ll confess that”—and here his voice faltered momentarily—“I’ve been a little afraid to suggest what I’m going to suggest.” A long pause ensued, followed by this: “I’m more afraid not to. Can we begin our crusade joined together in a moment of silent prayer?” The entire hall went silent, heads bowed. He then concluded with words uncommon at the time: “God bless America.”

How do we know that this moment marked a turning point? We ran the numbers.

If one looks at nearly 360 major speeches that presidents from Franklin Roosevelt to George W. Bush have given, the increase in religiosity is astounding. The average president from FDR to Carter mentioned God in a minority of his speeches, doing so about 47% of the time. Reagan, in contrast, mentioned God in 96% of his speeches. George H. W. Bush did so 91% of the time, Clinton 93%, and the current Bush (through year six) was at 94%. Further, the total number of references to God in the average presidential speech since 1981 is 120% higher than the average speech from 1933-1980. References to broader religious terms, such as faith, pray, sacred, worship, crusade, and dozens of others increased by 60%...

...This new age is one that many past presidents would hardly recognize. One can’t help but wonder what would become of a candidate today who, like John Kennedy in 1960, “believe[s] in a president whose views on religion are his own private affair.”

Read the rest of this article by Kevin Coe and David Demke: "Think Religion Plays a Bigger Role in Politics Today? You're Right. Statistics Prove It."  at the History News Network

===========

You may also find interesting:

The God Strategy: How Religion Became a Political Weapon in America by Coe and Demke

Amazon.com's description of the book:

This volume offers a timely and dynamic study of the rise of religion in American politics, examining the public messages of political leaders over the past seventy-five years. The authors show that U.S. politics today is defined by a calculated, deliberate, and partisan use of faith that is unprecedented in modern politics. Beginning with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, America has seen a no-holds-barred religious politics that seeks to attract voters, identify and attack enemies, and solidify power. Domke and Coe identify a set of religious signals sent by both Republicans and Democrats in speeches, party platforms, proclamations, visits to audiences of faith, and even celebrations of Christmas. The updated edition of this ground-breaking book includes a new preface, an updated analysis of the last Bush administration, as well as a new final chapter on the Jeremiah Wright controversy, the candidacies of Mike Huckabee and Sarah Sarah Palin, and Barack Obama's victory.

Everything [about religion] is right until it's wrong...

"Everything is right until it's wrong," says one character in the film "Hemingway's Garden of Eden." He then adds "You'll know when it's wrong." The lines were lifted from Ernest Hemingway's allegedly autobiographical novel published a quarter century after his death.

It made me think of my history with religion.

When I was very young, everything seemed right with religion. "Jesus loves me. This I know, for the Bible tells me so..." are the lyrics we sang almost every week in Sunday school, assuring us that Jesus loved us and that he would protect us. My parents were so certain that this was true, that their love for Jesus was somewhat overwhelming.

For me, religion was right until it was wrong and I knew when it started to go wrong and continued to go wrong for me.

I usually say my religious skepticism began when I was 12, but I can't remember exactly when it started.  I may have been younger.  I remember asking questions in Sunday school that no one could answer, such as, "Why are there no dinosaurs in the Bible?" And when my parents decided our family would read a chapter of the Bible every day before dinner, starting with chapter 1 of Genesis, I was horrified by much of what I read. The God of the Bible certainly didn't seem like he was worthy of praise and worship, only of fear.  And when we arrived at the end of Revelation, we started over so I had to read those horrendous and violent stories again.

After hearing the Hemingway quote, I decided to make a list of what seemed/was/is right with religion and then what I learned is wrong with it.  The list will not be immediately complete, as I will think of new things to add to it over time.

I would be glad to hear your two-cents worth of right and wrong things about religion (religion in general or any specific religion) in the comment section ---and if I agree, I will add them to my lists.

WHAT SEEMED/WAS/IS RIGHT ABOUT RELIGION?

For some people, religion is a comfort.

For some, religion provides a sense of belonging.

Some religious institutions do selfless charitable work, without requiring that recipients listen to sermons or accept their religious philosophies before receiving help.

Many members of religious congregations help each other in times of need.  When my sister was dying of cancer, members of her church drove her to appointments, made meals for her family, shopped and ran other errands when her family was unable to do everything.  I'm sure church members prayed with her, too. I personally think that prayer does no good but, most likely, my sister was comforted by their efforts.

Religion seems to help some people stay out of prison, overcome drug or alcohol abuse, etc.  An equally intense secular program might do as well, but the added incentive of heaven or fear of hell, probably helps. The life of an addict and the effects addiction has on family members and other victims, are probably worse than the negative effects of religion.

Religions teach right and wrong. In general they teach good values, unless they go overboard and expect perfection or use extreme views in hateful ways (such as Fred Phelps.)

Many religious people volunteer time/money for good works ---but so do many non-religious people. (If one disregards money donated directly to religious institutions, atheists actually donate more to charity than religious people.)


WHAT SEEMED/WAS/IS WRONG ABOUT RELIGION?

For some people, religion is a crutch which allows them to remain dependent, emotionally disabled, or childlike.

Some religious charitable institutions require recipients to listen to sermons or accept its religious philosophy before receiving help, thus the services provided are self-serving, not selfless acts of kindness.

Some religions instill debilitating shame and guilt on its members.

Some religions set moral standards almost no one can achieve and if one is so caught up in preaching against sin, some sins become almost irresistible. (Ted Haggard, Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, are you listening?)

Almost everyone believes his/her religion is the one true religion. They cannot all be right, but they can all be wrong.

Many religious leaders claim and want their congregations to believe that they are in possession of the whole truth ---yet no one is in possession of the whole truth about anything, especially religious concepts that cannot be proven.

Religion divides us ---pits one religion or one sect against another.  A perfect example is the frequent fights that erupt in the Church of the Nativity and the Church of the Holy Sepulcher between factions of monks fighting over territory within the churches.

Religious people tend to dislike, hate and/or have animosity toward those who disagree with them. Just read the crank mail received by the Freedom From Religion Foundation ---most of it from so-called "good Christians" ---you know, those people who are supposed to love their neighbors and enemies. Many non-believers or people of minority religions have reason to fear all those "good Christians." Students (and their family members) have been threatened and/or attacked physically or verbally after blowing the whistle on proselytising teachers, for example.

Religion can turn people into snobs.  They truly believe they are superior to others who have different beliefs or no religious beliefs at all. On the other hand, I know some atheists who look down their noses at religious people, too. It's the tribe instinct for mankind to do this, whether it be by supporting a sports team or a core belief.

Religion makes some people downright mean. Example: Fred Phelps.

Religion makes some people dangerous. Examples: Muslim terrorists, those who blow up abortion clinics, crusaders, Jim Jones.

Religious leaders have hidden the bad acts of some of its religion's leaders/members in order to keep up the appearance or reputation of the church and/or to hold onto its power.  (The Catholic Church's many sins include corruption in the Papacy, suppression of pedophile priests and abuse in Magdalene homes for women.) This shows that the religion's reputation and power are more important than the welfare of its members.

The Catholic church has threatened to excommunicate members who take a pro-choice stance on abortion. Apparently pedophile sex is not enough for priests to be excommunicated. In Brazil an entire medical team was excommunicated after performing an abortion on an 80-lb. nine-year-old who was pregnant with her stepfather's twins. Because of her age and size she was not expected to survive the pregnancy. Apparently rape of a nine-year-old stepdaughter is not worthy of excommunication.

Religion has been an underlying cause in countless wars. I can name very few wars that have not had religion as, at least in part, one of its causes. There is a theory that wars fought over land eventually end when one side takes definitive control over the property in question.  But religious wars (or any war based on a difference in ideology) never end.

Religion makes people do good in hopes of gaining a ticket to heaven, instead of doing good for goodness sake.

Religions teach myth and superstition as truth, thus blurring the lines between truth and fiction, between belief and rational thought. This results in poor reasoning abilities.

Religion causes wishful thinking which gives false hopes and results in unhappiness when those hopes are dashed.  Our dreams need to be based on reasonable expectations and the knowledge that dreams are usually fulfilled after much hard work and not the result of prayer.

Religious zealots think they can put their religious beliefs above all else, above the laws of their country or community and even above compassion.

Many reconstructionist Christians want to return to Biblical laws ---laws that would permit executions for homosexuality, abortion, or adultery.  Some even advocate public stoning as the preferred method of execution.  This sounds so much like radical Islam ---a religion that Christian zealots hate. (Is it true that we become what we hate?)

Religion seems to be obsessed with other people's sex lives. Sex is sinful before, after, or outside of marriage.  It is sinful with a same-sex partner. It is sinful if it is used as recreation rather than procreation. It is sinful to lust, even if only in one's heart, not in actual acts.

Karen Armstrong argues that in their terror of sex and hatred of women, theologians developed and propagated "the Christian sexual neurosis," an unholy trinity of women, sex, and sin that became identified with Christianity. Christian women have been forced to accept certain prescribed traditional stereotypical roles, as virgins, martyrs, witches, wives and mothers. Even though the women's movement of the 1970s and thereafter has overcome some of this, the Pat Robertson's of the world continue to rant against feminists.

Re: the above statements on sex ---it seems that many highly-religious people are simply jealous of anyone having more or better sex than they are.

In some religions, women are required to cover their hair, bodies and/or faces. I can't help but believe it is not to protect them from lustful men but to punish them for being perceived temptresses.  Islam considers that rape is not a sin on the part of a male, only on the part of the "temptress" female and is actually her just punishment for whatever sins she is perceived to have committed.

Many of the most outspoken of religious people are the worst hypocrites. Examples: Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, Ted Haggard, George Rekers to name only a few.

Some religious zealots blame all disasters on groups they dislike.  Pat Robertson is a master at this.  According to him, almost every disaster (earthquake, tsunami, 9/11) has been caused by God's retribution against homosexuals, abortionists, feminists, liberals, the ACLU, atheists, Hindus, and/or Muslims.  I wonder why God killed so many "innocent Christians" in natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina instead of warning them (as he allegedly did Noah) to get the hell out of New Orleans.

Most of the highly-religious people I know personally have little sense of humor.  What a shame that they can't have much fun.

---------------------------
This will be an ongoing project.  I will be adding more to this post as time permits.

I repeat: I would love to hear your input about right and wrong things about religion (religion in general or any specific religion) in the comment section ---and if I agree, I will add them to my lists.

The Invention of Lying - Movie Review

Plot Summary:

This film starts with a blind date between Mark (Ricky Gervais) and Anna (Jennifer Garner) who live in a world where everyone tells, not only the truth, but blurts out everything they are thinking:  "Yes, that dress makes you look fat" or "Your baby is so ugly, it's like a little rat."

No one has any imagination or creativity because there is nothing beyond what everyone can see. There are no white lies to save people from hurt feelings. Therefore everyone who is not beautiful and successful lives in a depressing stupor.

Mark loves Anna but she sees him as a loser who would produce fat, snub-nosed children. He is out of her league and, well, Brad (Rob Lowe) comes from a more attractive gene pool.

After being threatened with eviction, Mark suddenly breaks out of his stupor and tells a lie that makes everything better for him. And his lying makes others feel better, too. Everyone  believes everything he says because they can't imagine anyone telling something that "isn't."

Mark had been a screenwriter assigned to writing movies about the 13th century, a very boring historical period. Since there is little of interest to write about and he can't make the Black Plague exciting, he has been laid off. But, as soon as he realizes he can lie, he invents fiction, therefore his screenplays are so fantastic and interesting (albeit inane) that he becomes rich. Everyone believes his fictitious stories are the absolute truth.

Later, at his mother's death bed, Mark tells a lie to make her feel better about dying. He is overheard by the hospital staff and soon everyone believes he is a prophet.

I don't want to give more of the plot away, but the rest of the film involves the conflict of absolute truth and lying and the problems each can cause.

Opinions:

In several on-line reviews, people said the movie started out well and then went downhill, but for me, the opposite happened.  I thought most of the beginning was rather inane, but as it went on, I liked it more ---perhaps because it threw some light on why people believe the things they do.

I wouldn't call it a great movie, but I enjoyed the film. Netflix viewers gave it an average of 3 (out of 5) stars and IMDB readers rated it 6.4 (out of 10.)  Actually, the remarks ran the gamut: loved it, hated it, or so-so.

I liked that it was thought-provoking, yet (as you'll see below) simply "provoking" to some.  It had much to say about religion. As a non-believer, I found parts of it laugh-out-loud funny with lots of low-key humor in-between.

If that isn't enough to make an atheist want to see it, these reviews from Netflix might change your mind:

•"This movie is terrible, boring, not funny, and an attack on religion. If I didn't have to return it, I would put it in the shredder."

•"I thought that it was just terrible! The first 30 minutes or so were great but then they brought in religion and I found it very offensive and I didn't like it at all. It was very hard to finish the movie."

•"**SPOILER** This film is so disappointing. It completely makes fun of religion and seems to say that it is all made up. I felt like it was saying that if you are religious, you are gullible and stupid. I couldn't give it no stars so I rated it as low as I could."

•"The movie ended up being an insult and persecution of Christians everywhere. They mocked everything from God to the Ten Commandments. With the cast that this movie had it should have been really funny, but instead was a complete waste of time. It wasn't worth finishing and I would never recommend it to anyone. It I could give it less than a star I would."

I'm surprised any up-tight religious people got as far as the attack-on-religion parts. I would have thought they would have turned it off during the first five minutes when Anna blurts out that she had been masturbating when Mark rang her doorbell. (Some admitted they didn't watch more than a few minutes of it.)

Yes, it is an attack on religion, but it is fiction and it is a comedy.

Just a few more reviews from Netflix:

•"I loved this movie. It has a unique story line and makes you think outside the box. This is a true humanist movie."

•"Yeah it is anti-christian but it is hilarious...so get over it!!! This movie is great and I would suggest watching this movie."

IF JESUS RAN FOR PRESIDENT

Yes, if Jesus ran for president, the GOP would absolutely hate him.

POOR, PERSECUTED, WHINING U.S. CHRISTIANS

Is anyone else tired of all the B.S. from those poor "persecuted" Christians who think they are being discriminated against because non-Christians oppose their placing religious displays on public property or saying "Happy Holidays" (to be inclusive of everyone celebrating a religious holiday and/or the New Year) rather than "Merry Christmas."

Any religious person in this country can place a religious display or a dozen of them on his/her own private property. We aren't stopping anyone from wishing someone a "Merry Christmas" ---we just want you to know that you are being snobbish by not including those who do not believe as you do. Your children can pray silently as much or as often as they wish in school.  No one is stopping them. You can teach creationism or intelligent [sic] design to your heart's content at home or in church or Sunday school, but please leave it out of science classes because it has nothing to do with science.  I don't want to hear any more nonsense about secular humanism "taking over" our government ---a government whose Constitution disallows any religious preference, and therefore is supposed to be secular.

----------
Yesterday was my husband's birthday. As usual, I told him I'd take him anywhere he wanted. He chose to stop for Chinese take-out after a trip to Lowe's and then a stop at Barnes & Noble so he could connect to the Wi-Fi network.  I listened to an audio book on my iPod and browsed the shelves while he sat in the café with his Nook.

Christianity, Specialty Bibles, more Bibles,
and other religious materials.

More Christianity 

I noticed an entire row of books (consisting of 6 sections, 5 shelves per section) devoted to religion. I turned around and found another complete row of religious books. I went to the next aisle to find shelf after shelf of religious fiction, and a prominent display of Amish fiction at the end of an aisle.  (I assume these books had Amish characters, not Amish writers.)  I counted 90 shelves of religious books, plus a few with religious-related gift items. Nearly all of the books were on Christianity, some on other major religions, a small section on eastern religions and another on New Age subjects.

Religious fiction.

I was unable to find even one book on atheism, agnosticism, skepticism, freethought, humanism, or related subjects.  Finally I headed to the customer service station.  The woman there assured me they did have a non-religious collection, but even she had a difficult time finding it. Finally, she found it at the bottom of a section on philosophy, near the floor where it was sure to go unnoticed. And that one measly shelf was shared with linguistics.  I had my camera with me so I took a few shots. Unfortunately, my photo of the shelf was blurred, so I'm not sure if three of the books are on linguistics or a part of the, uh-hum, "vast" atheism/agnostic collection at B&N. Depending on which section those belong to, there are either 27 or 30 non-religious books, whereas there are between 3000 and 4000 religious books.

More religious fiction.

Most of my atheist friends are avid readers and most read books on atheism, agnosticism, and related subjects.  Last figures (depending on who has conducted the study) put non-believers in the U.S. at 15 to 20%. Yet B&N doesn't seem to know that. Their non-religious section consists of less than 1% of their collection of similar books on religion.

I don't know how the system works.  Maybe the local manager can decide what books are ordered or on display.  Maybe the manager decides which books are hidden away on the lowest shelves. Or perhaps it is company policy.

One measly shelf includes books on linguistics, atheism and agnosticism, suspiciously near the floor
where it might go unnoticed. (The atheism/agnostic section is in the red box, maybe including
the three books on the far left inside the red box and maybe not.)

I have read dozens of fiction books in which the protagonist is non-religious. Yet we atheists don't have our own atheist fiction section, but the Christian fiction section at my local B&N is huge.

So ---all  of you Christians who think the rest of us are trying to take your religion away from you, we are not.

When you have an entire political party catering to your every whim, a far-right news network (FOX) and many radio and cable networks (CBN, for example) spielling your religious hype, where there is a church on nearly every corner in most towns  ---I live in a town of 750 households with six churches ---and book stores that have more than 100 books on religion for every single book on non-religion, I doubt you have anything to worry about.

Now, on the other hand, there is a man who drives around my neighborhood with two 6-foot long Confederate flags waving from the back of his pick-up, a lighted cross on the grill, and several shot guns in a gun rack in his back window. Who do you think needs to be worrying in my town? Christians or atheists?

4/14/12 Addendum:
You may find this article interesting Is There A War On Religion?

Sex, God, Politics, and the Christian Right according to Frank Schaeffer

There are times when I want to dismiss those who have held onto religion. Non-believers often look upon religious zealots as being blind, misguided, inflexible, dependent, unintelligent, lacking a sense of humor, or just plain crazy ---and well, frankly, some of them are some of these things, but I know atheists who are, too. Yet, most of my friends are religious, albeit not religious zealots. If they were zealots they would not be my friends for they would be afraid of being tainted by my apostasy. 

Occasionally, I find a religious person in the public eye for whom I can have great respect because they are not afraid to tell the truth. I recently found one in Frank Schaeffer. Frank was successful as a professional evangelical Christian and it would have been easy for him to remain in that role, but eventually he couldn't stand the political climate he had a part in creating. He still believes in God and is a Christian, but not of the fundamentalist variety.  Because he was on the inside of that movement for so long, he has personal knowledge of the people involved and other insider information and isn't afraid to tell all.

I picked up his best-selling book at the library: Sex, Mom, and God: How the Bible's Strange Take on Sex Led to Crazy Politics--and How I Learned to Love Women (and Jesus) Anyway.

I have not finished the book yet, so I can't give a review of the entire book, but so far, I have found Schaeffer's childhood experiences in his highly-religious family somewhat reminiscent of my own. At times, it is laugh-out-loud funny. Yet, when he discusses reconstructionist Christian politics (for it is politics more than it is religion) the author is deadly serious ---and I mean "deadly" literally because its proponents would love to make homosexuality, pre-marital sex, adultery, and abortion capital crimes. 

In his book Schaeffer tells the story of his boyhood in Switzerland with his evangelical parents Edith and Francis Schaeffer. Francis is considered by many to be the person responsible for the anti-abortion movement and, ultimately, evangelical fundamentalists' shifting away from spreading the word of Christianity toward its current emphasis on right-wing politics. When asked what books he would not want to be without on a desert island, Mike Huckabee chose the Bible and one of Francis Schaeffer's books. 

Yet, Frank's mother was amazingly open and forthright about sex. (My mother rarely said the word "sex" in anything above a whisper and never discussed it with her children in a way that would make us think it was a natural human act.) Frank's mother took in unwed pregnant girls instead of condemning them, did not reject gays and, instead of being subservient to her husband as all good evangelical wives should be, was in some ways the power behind Francis who, by the way, was an abusive husband and father. In addition she was enamored of "worldly" art and music. 

Frank followed in his father's footsteps, eventually persuading his father to make an anti-abortion movie and publish religious books with political overtones, or perhaps political books with religious overertones. Frank openly admits his huge role in creating the "crazy politics" in the title of his book. But Frank gradually came to the conclusion that evangelical leaders were all about politics and power and had forgotten the core teachings of their much-touted religion. According to Wikipedia:

Schaeffer has written: "In the mid 1980s I left the Religious Right, after I realized just how very anti-American they are, (the theme I explore in my book Crazy For God)." He added that he was a Republican until 2000, working for Senator John McCain in that year's primaries, but that after the 2000 election he re-registered as an independent.

On NPR he admitted he voted for Obama in 2008, the first time he supported a democrat for the presidency. 

In writing about the 2012 campaign a few weeks ago on his blog, when Romney and Gingrich seemed to be the only viable Republican candidates (Rick Santorum has since been endorsed by evangelical leaders) Frank wrote that evangelicals' two choices are both objectionable to most of them. Gingrich is a multiple adulterer and they believe Romney isn't a "real" Christian. Frank says:

...Here's the supreme irony: the man the evangelicals who have hijacked the Republican Party hate most -- President Obama -- is a faithful married man, good father and professing Christian who has described his born-again experience in detail.

But he's "liberal," black and perhaps "not born in America," or a "Muslim," or "communist," or "the Antichrist," or something else pretty terrible: actually Christ-like in his compassion for the poor!

This is considered a great sin by evangelicals now that most of them are actually followers of Ayn Rand, not Jesus.

So the evangelicals will be voting for either Romney or Gingrich holding their noses. This bodes badly for the Republicans. In fact some evangelicals may even be forced to sit out the election and/or just deny it's happening at all just as they already deny global warming.

Maybe they will take to a hilltop and await the Return Of Christ and/or the return of Sarah Palin, whichever comes first.

Among Amazon's descriptions of the book:

“A penetrating analysis of political extremism, with a moving and at times hilarious account of growing up in one of the Christian right’s most influential families. Few writers command Frank Schaeffer’s intimate understanding of right-wing radicalism, and even fewer are able to share their insight as entertainingly and with as much moral weight as he has in Sex, Mom, and God.”—Max Blumenthal, author of Republican Gomorrah

“Mom was a much nicer person than her God. There are many biblical regulations about everything from beard-trimming to menstruating. Mom worked diligently to recast her personal-hygiene-obsessed God in the best light.”

Alternating between laugh-out-loud scenes from his childhood and acidic ruminations on the present state of an America he and his famous fundamentalist parents helped create, bestselling author Frank Schaeffer asks what the Glenn Becks and the Rush Limbaughs and the paranoid fantasies of the “right-wing echo chamber” are really all about.

Here’s a hint: sex.

The unforgettable central character in Sex, Mom, and God is the author’s far-from-prudish evangelical mother, Edith, who sweetly but bizarrely provides startling juxtapositions of the religious and the sensual thoughout Schaeffer’s childhood. She was, says Frank Schaeffer, “the greatest illustration of the Divine beauty of Paradox I’ve encountered … a fundamentalist living a double life as a lover of beauty who broke all her own judgmental rules in favor of creativity.”

Charlotte Gordon, the award-winning author of Mistress Bradstreet, calls Sex, Mom, and God “a tour de force . . . Sarah Palin, ‘The Family,’ Anne Hutchinson, adultery, abortion, homophobia, Uganda, Ronald Reagan, B. B. King, Billy Graham, Hugh Hefner—it’s all here. This is the kind of book I did not want to end.”

Frank Schaeffer is still a Christian, but not the kind of Christian his former supporters would like him to be.  He frequently distinguishes between the "God of the Bible" who he sees as vengeful, cruel, and misogynistic, and the God he wants to believe in.  He sees many right-wing Christians as hypocrites for their own hatred of America as it is (not the Christian nation they want it to be) while at the same time accusing liberals of being unAmerican.

According to Frank Schaeffer: 

Gingrich's "view" of the law was developed by the Reconstructionists. Nothing better illustrates the how and why of the Christian-conservative shift to the extreme Right - its sense of victimhood combined with its fearful hatred of the (Muslim, gay, or pro-choice) "Other" -- than the rise of the so-called Reconstructionist movement.

Reconstructionists seek to apply the full scope of the Biblical Law to modern America and to the world.

To put it bluntly, Reconstructionists want to replace the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights with their interpretation of the Bible. That includes executing people for being gay...

[Robert] George's brainchild: the "Manhattan Declaration: A Call of Christian Conscience" is the script Gingrich is following when he talks about overthrowing the rule of law in favor of religious "rights."

This was published in 2009 as an anti-Obama manifesto, and many Evangelical leaders signed on. [Robert] George may not have been following [Rousas John] Rushdoony or have ever read his work, but the Evangelicals who signed on to George's agenda would never have done so if not for the influence of Reconstructionism on American Evangelicals decades before. 

The Manhattan Declaration which many evangelical leaders have signed, ultimately states they don't have to obey any laws they don't like.  Let's see! Who is being unAmerican here?  And anyone who signs or who agrees with this declaration cannot possibly take the presidential oath of office ---for a president has to agree to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," the foundation for all of our laws.

Frank Schaeffer says in Crazy for God:

The public image of the leaders of the religious right I met with so many times also contrasted with who they really were. In public, they maintained an image that was usually quite smooth. In private, they ranged from unreconstructed bigot reactionaries like Jerry Falwell, to Dr. Dobson, the most power-hungry and ambitious person I have ever met, to Billy Graham, a very weird man indeed who lived an oddly sheltered life in a celebrity/ministry cocoon, to Pat Robertson, who would have had a hard time finding work in any job where hearing voices is not a requirement....

What I slowly realized was that the religious-right leaders we were helping to gain power were not ‘conservatives’ at all, in the old sense of the world. They were anti-American religious revolutionaries...

I personally came to believe that a lot of the issues that were being latched onto by the Christian Right, whether it was the gay issue or abortion or other things, were actually being used for negative political purposes. They were used to structure a power base for people who then threw their weight around. 

Sources:

Frank Schaeffer on Wikipedia

Who Should the Evangelicals Hate Most? by Frank Schaeffer

Newt Gingrich the Republicans and the Loony Religious Fringe by Frank Schaeffer

Suggested reading:

Fighting the Culture Wars With Hate, Violence and Even Bullets: Meet the Most Extreme of the Radical Christians

John Whitehead's interview with Frank Schaeffer

GOD DOESN'T CARE ABOUT POLITICS OR FOOTBALL

For years, now, candidates in the U.S., especially Republican candidates, have  been making statements that God wants them to run for political office.  We have heard this in the past from the likes of Mike Huckabee and, more recently, several of the 2012 candidates for president.

And now we have a national hero in Tim Tebow, because of his open Christianity on the football field.  No wonder my husband often refers sarcastically to the "Church of Football" because in my neck of the woods, some churches hold Sunday services early, or not at all, to accommodate football fans.

Football fans and members of religious sects and political parties all share something in common. They are tribal.  They are tribal because they form group ties characterized not only by strong loyalty to the groups they support, but also vehement hatred of opposing groups.

Bill Press

Bill Press who is the host of a nationally syndicated radio show and author of Toxic Talk: How the Radical Right Has Poisoned America's Airwaves" wrote an great article:
GOD DOESN'T CARE ABOUT POLITICS OR FOOTBALL.

Here are a few excerpts from his 12/15/11 article:

Psssst! Don’t tell anybody, but I have a secret. I talk to God every day. And she told me herself: She doesn’t give a fig who wins the Republican primary. But you’d never know that, listening to today’s Christian political charlatans.

No less than four out of eight Republican candidates have said they’re only running for president because God told them to run. Michele Bachmann started it, insisting that God called her to run for president, just like he told her to run for Congress in 2006. Rick Perry told reporters: “God has put me in this place at this time to do his will...”

God was also speaking to Mrs. Rick Santorum, who told the Christian Broadcasting Network: “We have prayed a lot about this decision, and we believe with all our hearts that this is what God wants.” But nobody played the God card more shamefully than Herman Cain...

Now, obviously, if we are to take these candidates seriously, God is either confused, forgetful, senile, or just playing with their heads. If he really cares about who wins the Republican primary, he wouldn’t have told four different candidates to run. And, notice, he didn’t tell any of the four they’d actually win... 

Today, as quarterback of the Denver Broncos, [Tim] Tebow takes religion to a new public level, dramatically dropping to one knee in prayer after every touchdown – a pose now officially known as “tebowing” – and crediting Jesus for every success on the field....

Now, if you’re one of the silly millions who still see nothing wrong with Tebow’s in-your-face brand of religion, consider this: What if Tim Tebow were a devout Muslim who bowed to Mecca after every touchdown while shouting: “Allahu Akbar!” Somehow, I don’t think we’d be celebrating him as a national hero.

To read the entire article, click HERE.

 --------------
And while on the subject of religion and politics, you might also be interested in this:
Rick Santorum: Insane Christian