The Republican culture war continues: Carrie Prejean's sex tape V.S. Meghan McCain's boobs

Carrie Prejean Sextape Video: Meghan McCain "Unnerved" by "Hypocrisy"

NEW YORK (CBS) Meghan McCain, the daughter of 2008 Republican presidential nominee John McCain, has taken to task fallen beauty queen Carrie Prejean and opponents of same-sex marriage, in the wake of news that the former Miss California USA has filmed a sex tape.

Meghan McCain, who calls herself both a Republican and a strong supporter of same-sex marriage, said that she is "unnerved" by the hypocrisy shown by Prejean, the 22-year-old "anti-gay marriage champion," and politicians who use gay-marriage as a moral "trump card in any situation" while sex scandals, normally abhorrent to conservative moral codes, don't seem to bother them a bit.

"Making a sex tape is never acceptable," McCain wrote in an editorial posted on the news website The Daily Beast . "I find it even more disturbing that as long as you oppose gay marriage, filming yourself having sex is taken more lightly."

"Does anyone else see the hypocrisy in this kind of thinking? And hypocrisy is something the Republican Party can’t afford to have right now as the GOP struggles to find its identity," McCain wrote in the piece posted Monday.

[...]

McCain, who was in a photo flap herself recently for "tweeting" a busty picture of herself to her followers on Twitter, wrote "If you’re a Republican, is it better to be in favor of gay marriage or to make a sex tape?"

"It seems that as long as you are against gay marriage, any scandal in your life can be overlooked or overcome. When you are in favor of it, however—and I have been very vocal about my support—that position defines you," said McCain.

"Many believe that it was Carrie Prejean’s anti-gay marriage views that cost her the Miss USA California title earlier this year. My question is: When it comes to Republicans, is your position on gay marriage what determines your fate within the party?" [...]

All the more reason not to make social issues the spearhead of the Republican Party platform. With George W. we had eight years of social conservatism at the forefront of the party, at the expense of fiscal conservatism, and look where it's gotten us.

I don't say abandon social issues. I say, put at the forefront of the party, as the spearhead, issues like fiscal conservatism, economic growth and job creation, issues that a majority of voters can agree on. The culture wars should occur primarily in the culture, not the GOP.

Not all Republicans agree on the definition of conservative. Not all Republicans are social conservatives. We need to emphasis in our party the things we do agree on: balanced budgets, a strong defense, free markets, and hopefully, individual sovereignty and the freedom to make our own choices.

Under such a platform, social issues would benefit indirectly, because INDIVIDUALS would have the freedom to make their own choices, and be free to fight the culture wars. If we instead fight each other and succumb to a politically correct socialist nanny state, you can kiss it ALL goodbye. 2010 is the last call. The GOP needs to get their Big Tent set up, and quickly.

Follow the link above for photos (Prejean, Meghan's boobs)


Also see:

The GOP: a Political Vehicle, or an Ideology?
 
   

"Prosperity" Churches, and the Recession

Did Christianity Cause the Crash?
America’s mainstream religious denominations used to teach the faithful that they would be rewarded in the afterlife. But over the past generation, a different strain of Christian faith has proliferated—one that promises to make believers rich in the here and now. Known as the prosperity gospel, and claiming tens of millions of adherents, it fosters risk-taking and intense material optimism. It pumped air into the housing bubble. And one year into the worst downturn since the Depression, it's still going strong.

[...] America’s churches always reflect shifts in the broader culture, and Casa del Padre is no exception. The message that Jesus blesses believers with riches first showed up in the postwar years, at a time when Americans began to believe that greater comfort could be accessible to everyone, not just the landed class. But it really took off during the boom years of the 1990s, and has continued to spread ever since. This stitched-together, homegrown theology, known as the prosperity gospel, is not a clearly defined denomination, but a strain of belief that runs through the Pentecostal Church and a surprising number of mainstream evangelical churches, with varying degrees of intensity. In Garay’s church, God is the “Owner of All the Silver and Gold,” and with enough faith, any believer can access the inheritance. Money is not the dull stuff of hourly wages and bank-account statements, but a magical substance that comes as a gift from above. Even in these hard times, it is discouraged, in such churches, to fall into despair about the things you cannot afford. “Instead of saying ‘I’m poor,’ say ‘I’m rich,’” Garay’s wife, Hazael, told me one day. “The word of God will manifest itself in reality.”

Many explanations have been offered for the housing bubble and subsequent crash: interest rates were too low; regulation failed; rising real-estate prices induced a sort of temporary insanity in America’s middle class. But there is one explanation that speaks to a lasting and fundamental shift in American culture—a shift in the American conception of divine Providence and its relationship to wealth.

In his book Something for Nothing, Jackson Lears describes two starkly different manifestations of the American dream, each intertwined with religious faith. The traditional Protestant hero is a self-made man. He is disciplined and hardworking, and believes that his “success comes through careful cultivation of (implicitly Protestant) virtues in cooperation with a Providential plan.” The hero of the second American narrative is a kind of gambling man—a “speculative confidence man,” Lears calls him, who prefers “risky ventures in real estate,” and a more “fluid, mobile democracy.” The self-made man imagines a coherent universe where earthly rewards match merits. The confidence man lives in a culture of chance, with “grace as a kind of spiritual luck, a free gift from God.” The Gilded Age launched the myth of the self-made man, as the Rockefellers and other powerful men in the pews connected their wealth to their own virtue. In these boom-and-crash years, the more reckless alter ego dominates. In his book, Lears quotes a reverend named Jeffrey Black, who sounds remarkably like Garay: “The whole hope of a human being is that somehow, in spite of the things I’ve done wrong, there will be an episode when grace and fate shower down on me and an unearned blessing will come to me—that I’ll be the one.”

I had come to Charlottesville to learn more about this second strain of the American dream—one that’s been ascendant for a generation or more. I wanted to try to piece together the connection between the gospel and today’s economic reality, and to see whether “prosperity” could possibly still seem enticing, or even plausible, in this distinctly unprosperous moment. (Very much so, as it turns out.) Charlottesville may not be the heartland of the prosperity gospel, which is most prevalent in the Sun Belt—where many of the country’s foreclosure hot spots also lie. And Garay preaches an unusually pure version of the gospel. Still, the particulars of both Garay and his congregation are revealing.

Among Latinos the prosperity gospel has been spreading rapidly. In a recent Pew survey, 73 percent of all religious Latinos in the United States agreed with the statement: “God will grant financial success to all believers who have enough faith.” For a generation of poor and striving Latino immigrants, the gospel seems to offer a road map to affluence and modern living. Garay’s church is comprised mostly of first-generation immigrants. More than others I’ve visited, it echoes back a highly distilled, unself-conscious version of the current thinking on what it means to live the American dream.

One other thing makes Garay’s church a compelling case study. From 2001 to 2007, while he was building his church, Garay was also a loan officer at two different mortgage companies. He was hired explicitly to reach out to the city’s growing Latino community, and Latinos, as it happened, were disproportionately likely to take out the sort of risky loans that later led to so many foreclosures. To many of his parishioners, Garay was not just a spiritual adviser, but a financial one as well. [...]

I was skeptical about this article at first. The title alone seemed alarmist. But the article itself is more subtle, and fair. It deals with the "prosperity" churches in particular, and acknowledges the good these churches can do, as well as examining their more... "questionable" or contradictory teachings.

I'm not against prosperity teachings; you have to have a vision of something better in order to transcend whatever adversity you may be facing in life. But even optimism has to be tempered with a healthy dose of pessimism, as a "grounding" influence. Emotions, however fervently felt, need to be balanced with reason. This article points out well how those lines can be blurred sometimes.

I would not say Christians caused the Crash. That's way too simplistic. The crash was caused by too many bad home loans, in which some Christians may have been caught up in. I still hold the LENDERS responsible, AND the people in Congress who pushed to have those bad loans made, despite all the warnings at the time. And I also blame all the bail-outs of banks over the past decades, banks that should have been allowed to fail. Instead, the bail-outs just protected them from the consequences of their irresponsible actions, which in turn just encouraged them to be even more reckless, and to continue making risky loans.

Even now, bailed-out banks are continuing to make loans to people who aren't able to pay them back. Protected from consequences, the banks have learned nothing. Where is the accountability? Who is more irresponsible, the people who take the loans, or the banks that make them, and then expect the taxpayers to bail them out when the loans go bad? And what about the politicians who insist that banks must make high risk loans available?

     

Mormon Church takes middle path on gay rights

Mormons throw support behind gay-rights cause

It looked like a stunning reversal: the same church that helped defeat gay marriage in California standing with gay-rights activists on an anti-discrimination law in its own backyard.

On Tuesday night, after a series of clandestine meetings between local gay-rights backers and Mormons in Salt Lake City, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints announced it would support proposed city laws that would prohibit discrimination against gays in housing and employment.

The ordinances passed and history was made: It marked the first time the Salt Lake City-based church had supported gay-rights legislation.

[...]

Michael Otterson, director of public affairs for the Mormon church, said Wednesday that church leaders were able to support the ordinance because it doesn't carve out special rights for gays.

Supporting "basic civil values," Otterson said, does not compromise the church's religious belief that homosexuality is a sin and that same-sex marriage poses a threat to traditional marriage.

"There are going to be gay advocates who don't think we've gone nearly far enough, and people very conservative who think we've gone too far," Otterson said. "The vast majority of people are between those polar extremes and we think that's going to resonate with people on the basis of fair-mindedness."

Harry Knox, director of the religion and faith program at the gay-rights group Human Rights Campaign, said the Mormon church's stand on the Salt Lake City ordinances could help alter the debate over gay rights.

"The church deserves credit, but that credit really comes because people have been pushing for it," Knox said. "It's not something thing they arrived at on their own and out of the goodness of their hearts."

The church's action is the latest sign of a softening among some conservative Christians toward offering some legal protections to gays. [...]

Interesting. Siding with "fair-mindedness", as seen by the "vast majority". Given their position on gay rights, their is a logic to their conclusion. This is a matter where it will be impossible to please everyone, and the middle path often leaves the extremes on both sides angry.
     

An ... "interactive" Mural. Is it Art? Is it politics?

Is it somewhat educational? Is it kinda creepy? You decide:

One Nation Under God

My vote goes to all four. From a purely artistic viewpoint, I enjoy it. It has a classic style, and the artist seems to have put a lot of... "love" into it. Is that the word? I think it is.

Politically, well... it represents the views of a shrinking demographic in America. I understand the sentiments well enough, but increasingly its... a shrinking demographic. One could endlessly discuss the many political aspects presented here.

Educationally... well. I suppose you could call it an introduction to some figures of history. It certainly could evoke some questions and discussions.

I'd love to hear how the Art Nun would describe this painting. How would she suss out the psychology of it? How would she describe it? The End of the White Christian American World? The end of the American Constitution? The End of the World, period? It certainly seems like the end of someone's world. And Satan behind the movie producer... well I suppose if ya gotta put him somewhere... anyway, creepy. Just in time for Halloween?

Andrew Sullivan had a comment about the Jesus in this painting:

Amending The Christianist Tableau

[...] What if Jesus were portrayed as, you know, Jewish, rather than as some Deutsche Christen linebacker? [...]

He gives a sample of a more realistic rendition, then suggests that it "wouldn't work". Follow the link and see. Would it work? I think not. Hence, for me, part of the creepy factor.

Christianity certainly did influence the creation of the American Constitution. The interactive mural makes for some good discussion points. Different parts of it bother me, for a variety of reasons. On the whole, I have to say it makes me uncomfortable, but then, it's meant to; and strangely, that's part of what I enjoy about it. So ultimately, I won't knock the whole thing, but neither am I going to buy the whole store.

It is what it is. It will mean more to some people than others.
     

NOM wants a "Rainbow Coalition"? To stop other people from... having what they have?

Maggie Gallagher's NOM (National Organization for [straight only] Marriage) created this video to promote their cause. I think they're over-stating their case:



While I can be sympathetic to some of their concerns... this is going to be a losing strategy. The Anita Bryant contingent of the religious right is still alive and kicking, and they apparently haven't learned much from Anita's fiasco. Now they want a "rainbow coalition"? Of all the phrases they could have used... the irony is too rich.

Yes, there is a hard core of Leftists who would like to change the definition of marriage. Those folks will use ANY issue to subvert the status quo, to tear down our society so they can replace it with something else. Gay marriage is just one of many issues they are trying to subvert for advancing their agenda.

However, for the majority of gay people who want to be married, they just want to be... married. To enjoy a domestic life similar to that of their married family and friends, with the same legal benefits. Most people understand that.

Life if full of people, places, and all sorts of things that I don't approve of. I can't fight them all, so I tolerate most of them, and chose my battles carefully, like I think, most people do. The people you become most intolerant of, are the most likely to become your enemies. I try to avoid that when possible.

NOM are likely making enemies for themselves, all in the name of a campaign they cannot ultimately win. Even if they win this battle, they will lose the war.

The idea that some same sex couples getting married makes victims out of heterosexuals will likely strike most people as absurd. Just ask the many former Republicans who are now registered as "Independent". Ask the Vanishing Young Republicans. The polls have steadily showed growing tolerance for gay marriage. You can argue with me all you like, but I don't create the polls. That's the reality. You can argue with reality too, but you'll lose.

Do the people who made this creepy advert think it's going to appeal to a majority of Americans? Good luck with that. Anita Bryant, by any other name, is still "The Scary Juice Lady". And she's hardly an example to follow. Unless you want political failure, divorce, and a string of bankruptcies.

When I lived in San Francisco, the leftists would often say "The religious right will self-destruct; just give them enough rope, and they will hang themselves".

This looks like another knot in the noose. I thought Christian's were against suicide? I guess not all of them.


Related Links:

Cal Thomas gets it right once again
He can be brutally honest, and here, he is.

The End of Christian Politics in America?

The "New Humanism"

     

Is this book "The Shack" theologically correct?

Is it supposed to be? Does it matter? I haven't read it, but it was recommended by someone in a Christmas card we received, so I looked it up on Amazon.com:

The Shack (Paperback)

Product Description
Mackenzie Allen Philips' youngest daughter, Missy, has been abducted during a family vacation and evidence that she may have been brutally murdered is found in an abandoned shack deep in the Oregon wilderness.

Four years later in the midst of his Great Sadness, Mack receives a suspicious note, apparently from God, inviting him back to that shack for a weekend. Against his better judgment he arrives at the shack on a wintry afternoon and walks back into his darkest nightmare. What he finds there will change Mack's world forever.

In a world where religion seems to grow increasingly irrelevant "The Shack" wrestles with the timeless question, "Where is God in a world so filled with unspeakable pain?" The answers Mack gets will astound you and perhaps transform you as much as it did him. You'll want everyone you know to read this book!

It has over 2,000 customer reviews, giving it an average of four out of five stars. There are some sample pages to you can read from the forward to the book, and I read them up to the point where it stopped. It was interesting enough to hold my attention that long. Don't know if I would want to read the whole thing, as I'm not a fan of religious books generally.


When I looked it up on Amazon, the search also showed me this book:

THE SHACK: Unauthorized Theological Critique (Paperback)

Product Description
In this booklet I hope to guide you through The Shack. We will look at the book with a charitable but critical eye, attempting to understand what it teaches and how it can be that opinions about the book vary so widely. We do this not simply to be critical, but as an exercise in discernment and critical thinking. We will simply look at what the author teaches and compare that to the Bible.

This book had 14 customer reviews, that averaged out to be two out of five stars. Judging from the comments the reviewers left, many didn't care for the author's criticism.

I don't consider myself religious, because I don't care about doctrines of theology or religious dogma. I consider myself a Christian culturally, but I don't identify myself as a Christian religiously, because to do so has specific meanings, implies things about beliefs that I don't hold.

In my youth I explored religion, and found it wanting. From Christianity I did learn some things of value, and they have stayed with me. The rest I discarded. As appealing as parts of it may be, I don't try to associate myself with the religious whole, because my beliefs would make me a heretic or a hypocrite. I also don't have a need to have everything explained for me; how can anyone explain away the ubiquitous ineffable? I'm content with The Mystery.

Where The Shack is coming from and where it is going, and whether or not I'll ever read it, I couldn't say. It does appear to want to tackle some tough questions, and perhaps from a spiritual perspective it could be interesting. But this book is being called "The Pilgim's Progress of our Times". I read Pilgrim's Progress, and hated it. It was interesting as anthropology/literature, but spiritually it seemed to embody much of what I don't like about religion, and stridently religious people.

I see faith as a personal matter. I'm not interested in religious arguments. I can't comment on a book I haven't read, so I won't. I'm just wondering if it's a book that would have appeal beyond a strictly religious audience? I've read that there are plans to make it into a movie, for general theatrical release. That implies it could have a wide appeal, unless they have to change it a lot for the movie.

The author of The Shack has a website at www.theshackbook.com. The book's index, "forward" and the first chapter are all available on-line there.

Merry Christmas.
     

More British Nonsense for the Holidays

Does this guy look like a criminal to you?


He will be if he shakes that can. He'll be arrested for "Religious Harassment".

After 130 years of fundraising, Sally Army told to stop rattling collecting tins because it might 'offend other religions'

[...] One collector told the Daily Mail: 'I've been doing this for more than 40 years and I fail to see how rattling a tin could cause offence. If I was shaking a tambourine I could do it all day - if I shake my tin, I could end up in court.'

The 'Silent Night' rattle ban manifested itself at the weekend in Uxbridge, West London, when musicians from two local branches performed outside a shopping mall.

(They were outside because traders complained last year they were too loud to play inside).

Tony Keywood, shopping with his wife Sheila, was among a crowd enjoying the carols and stepped forward to make a donation.

'I jokingly told them off for not shaking their tins,' said Mr Keywood, 78, a retired telecoms executive. 'They said they weren't allowed to do that in case it caused offence to other religions. They said they'd been told rattling a tin was considered to be intimidating.

'I don't know who makes up these rules but I suspect it will have something to do with human rights. I do feel Britain has lost its way on things like this.' [...]

Sheesh! Religious harassment? Where is Major Barbara when you need her?

How about this, for genuine religious harassment:

Blind man's guide dog barred from restaurant for offending Muslims

[...] Mr Elder-Brown was taking his girlfriend out to celebrate her birthday with her five year-old daughter last week when he was told he would have to leave his dog, Finn, tied up outside.

He showed a card issued by the Institute of Environmental Health Officers certifying he and his dog were allowed into any premises but an argument ensued and the owners threatened to call the police if he did not leave.

"It was humiliating and degrading, especially as there were a lot of people around me," he said.

"I was made to feel like a piece of dirt. They told me I couldn't come in because it was against their religious beliefs to have a dog in the restaurant.

"They then said I could leave Finn tied up outside. I stayed calm but when they threatened to call police I left."

He added: "It was horrible. It put a dampener on the whole celebration."

Under the Disability Discrimination Act it is illegal to refuse to serve a disabled person of give them a diminished level of service because of their disability. [...]

People are emigrating out of Great Britain in record numbers. Gee, I wonder why?
     

Christian moralizing as a party platform

Are conservative Christians and the Republican Party one and the same thing? I wouldn't say so, although I wouldn't deny they make a up a huge part of the party. So much so, that Republicans can't win elections without them. But not so large, that Republican's can rely ONLY on them. The Republican Party needs to expand it's base, and it needs to do so while retaining most of it's current membership. How can that be accomplished?

Since Bush senior, conservative Christians have made their social issues the spearhead of the Republican party. While that may have had a short term gain for the party, in the long term, due to changing demographics, it's likely to be a losing proposition.

I'm not suggesting that religious conservatives give up their social positions, because:

A.) They WON'T.

B.) I wouldn't let anyone tell me to give up my positions on anything, so I would not expect anyone else to.

What I am talking about is, the spearhead of the Republican Coalition. In a coalition, the members have core beliefs they share, and a variety of other beliefs that can differ considerably. If the coalition is to hold together, the spearhead must be the core beliefs, so all them members can rally behind it and support it. If the spearhead is instead the agenda of one coalition member, the support drops, and the spear, through lack of support, never reaches it's target.

I think that's what we are seeing currently. Religious Republicans have been putting their social issues at the forefront, the spearhead, of the party. When they are asked not to do that, they complain that they are being asked to "give up" their social issues. I submit that that is not the case. I think what they are being asked to to is, to rally around the core beliefs that they share with other non-religious Republicans, and put those at the forefront of the party.

Why? So we can win elections. Why? Because if your party is powerless, NONE of your issues will be served well, if at all.

If you insist on all or nothing, you will often end up with nothing.

Social issues are also Hearts and Minds issues. They can't be legislated onto people against their will. If you try to impose such issues on a free people, against popular sentiment, you create resistance and even a backlash.

The political left understands this. Tammy Bruce, in her three books, goes into great detail as to how the left has succeeded in implementing many of their agendas over the years. The secret: they did it incrementally. They knew that giant, sweeping changes would only alarm and repel. So they advanced their causes piece by piece, eroding away at the opposition. Over time, it adds up, it counts, it makes a difference.

Religious and Social conservatives could do the same thing, but they tend to stick to "all or nothing" scenarios, and thus often end up with nothing; the moral purist high-road becomes a dead end.

The other factor is positivity. Who wins elections, historically? Usually it the most optimistic, positive and upbeat candidate. Democrats often loose presidential elections because their candidates whine and complain, and emphasis what they are AGAINST, more than the expound positively what they are FOR.

Obama was very upbeat and optimistic. Superficial perhaps, but it played well none the less. Conservatives (myself included) fell into the trap of constantly criticizing Obama about things the media would not cover, which ended up making the Republicans sound very negative. Furthermore, many conservatives were often negative about our own candidate John McCain. Some came around towards the end, but only half heartedly. And what did the loudest voices in the Republican party, the Religious/Social conservatives, keep pushing to the forefront? Anti-abortion and Anti-gay marriage platforms, and all sorts of things they were AGAINST.

We become the party that was AGAINST, which is usually the Democrats losing strategy, but this time it was ours. Oh sure, there was plenty of stuff we were FOR, but it was not at the forefront of what the public saw.

Are we going to learn anything from this? I keep hearing different factions of the Republican party saying, we need to kick out the religious conservatives, or the social liberals, or the small "L" libertarians, etc. Ridiculous. Kicking people out just makes our party smaller and weaker. What we NEED is, at the forefront of our party, a spearhead that we can ALL stand behind, support enthusiastically, and speak inspiringly of, and be positive about.

It's perfectly doable, but will we? Or will we continue to be perceived as the negative, all-or-nothing, divided and divisive, interfering busy-body party that non-religious voters complain about? It's up to us.

Tammy Bruce today has a poll on her blog, asking Should the GOP reach Out to Pro-Choicers?. I'm sure many Pro-Life conservatives would be tempted to automatically vote "NO", but I would ask them to think about it more deeply. I would ask them to consider, are you more interested in posturing against abortion (and getting nowhere), or changing laws to limit abortion, thus saving actual lives?

Tammy Bruce herself, while being pro-choice, has also called abortion "the Razor's Edge". She's said she doesn't approve of the way it's used as birth control, and she has a lot of sympathy for women who are pro-life. She has said that as a feminist, she wants every women to "find her own voice", and when many women do that they find that it's a "pro-life" voice, and she accepts that.

Tammy is conservative on many, probably most issues. Can we not expand our party to include people like her? Would it be such a bad thing for us to win elections?

This isn't about "giving up"; it's called "give a little, get a little". It's about the art of political maneuvering; it's about making incremental advances, instead of blunt inflexible posturing, that may feel good when you do it but in reality does NOTHING to advance your cause.

I've used abortion as an example here, but it could easily apply to just about any social issue that's important to you. "Compromise" is only a dirty word if you believe that idealism is more important than affecting actual change on the ground. Incremental change not only makes a difference, it also is a footsoldier in the battle for hearts and minds. If your cause is better served by incremental advances, then get started. Start moving things to where you want them to be, even if it's slowly, instead of just loudly complaining that you aren't there yet.

There is no political party that fits my views 100%. With maturity I've learned to compromise, because I realized that it's the only realistic way to actually advance the causes and principles that I do care about. I've understood that I can't do it alone, that I need other people, and that means agreeing with people on the things I can agree on, and agreeing to disagree about the rest. An 80% ally isn't a 20% enemy. Ronald Reagan taught me that, and it's a lesson that the Republican party as a whole would do well to strive to embrace, if it's going to survive the 21st century.