Dear White Christian America: Jesus Wasn't White

The historical Jesus would likely be subject to stop-and-frisk policies by the NYPD.

March 18, 2013 | Alternet

The History Channel miniseries The Bible is one of the most popular TV shows in recent memory. "The greatest story ever told" seems to have much life left in it.

During an age of economic uncertainty (and even more so among Christian Dominionist evangelicals who believe Barack Obama is the anti-Christ ) it makes sense that a retreat to a popularized version of the underpinnings of Christian faith, tailor-made for cable TV, has proven to be popular.

The Bible will likely draw more viewers following the controversy generated by a recent episode that offered up a vision of “Satan” whose facial features are almost identical to those of President Barack Obama.

The right-wing echo chamber is resonating with affirmation and joy at this discovery: the Christian Dominionists on the Right instinctively knew that the election of Barack Obama, the United States’ first black president, beckoned the “End Times.” (McCain’s campaign even offered up an ad in 2008 suggesting this very fact.) Now, the History Channel has validated their version of reality.

The Bible is not a "true" or "accurate" depiction of events. Like other TV shows and films, the final product is the result of the many decisions made by producers, actors, directors, writers, and editors. However, that does not mean that we should avoid asking some basic questions about the accuracy of the miniseries. For some, what follows is an uncomfortable truth.

The historical figure known as Jesus of Nazareth was not "white. He was not European. Based on the scholarly consensus, the historical Jesus would be a Middle Eastern Jew of medium, if not dark, complexion. He was certainly dark enough to have spent time in the Middle East and elsewhere, and not to have had his skin tone commented upon or noted.

This Jesus would be hounded and harassed by the TSA, looked at as a de facto "suspicious" person in post-9/11 America, and be racially profiled by the national security state. The historical Jesus would likely be subject to stop-and-frisk policies by the New York police and others. If it were too late at night, and the historical Jesus was trying to get a cab--especially if he were not attired "professionally"--he would be left standing curbside because brown folks in their 20s and 30s who look like him are presumed to be criminals.

Despite the "common sense" depiction of Jesus in the (white) American popular imagination, the historical Jesus Christ is not a white surfer dude with blue eyes, long flowing hair, and tanned and toned skin.

When I was an undergraduate and forced to take a series of religious studies classes as part of a core requirement, I was exposed first-hand to how volatile such a basic observation can be to some Christians and others who identify with that faith tradition. Our professor was discussing how the Bible is a historical text that has been edited and changed to reveal the prevailing political and social norms of a given time. I asked a question about the Civil Rights Movement and how black folks tried to use the text for purposes of political inspiration and motivation in the face of great adversity.

This transitioned to a followup question where I asked, "What color was Jesus?" Having just seen the movie, Malcolm X, I was curious as to the professor's response. He looked around and plainly said that Jesus Christ was not white or European. He would likely be a medium-complected Jew with brown or darker skin.

Check and mate: thus my followup, "Could one reasonably say that Jesus the historical figure was black?"

Our masterful professor looked around in a contemplative manner and said, "Depending on who you ask, and in what context, one could say that he could be considered 'black' in a society like America where whites have been so color conscious and race obsessed." You could have heard a pin hit the floor as gasps of anger erupted from the white (and some black and brown) students in the class.

Some students actually tried to get this professor fired. He was saved by a few things. First, his research claims, historiography on the matter, and credentials were impeccable. He had tenure. And he was white. It is quite likely that a black faculty member making such a basic claim would have had far fewer protections.

In these discussions of faith, some would likely object that race doesn't matter. Who cares what color the historical Jesus is/was?

Here, the color of Jesus Christ matters while simultaneously being of little import. Thus, a paradox. If the color of Jesus Christ is unimportant, why then the objection to the question and a resistance to changing the images to be more historically accurate? Moreover, such a basic question about the lie that is white Jesus, is often deflected and redirected into one which ends with the power of the white racial frame enabling those invested in its distortion(s) of reality arguing that anyone, especially a person of color, asking such things must be a black "racist" or anti-white.

If a Christian is a true believer why would they have difficulty reconciling their faith with such a superficial thing as changing the historical lie that is white Jesus into one that is more accurate, a man of color, whose message would be unchanged? Would it really be that hard for some white Christians (and others) to kneel before a black or brown Jesus Christ? Are the psychic wages of whiteness so great as to distort a person's image of God?

These matters of race, religion and politics remain potent even in 21st-century America. See how President Obama's presidential campaign was almost destroyed by Reverend Wright and the white conservative bogeyman known as "black liberation theology."

Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo's White Jesus were iconic images that enabled European colonialism and imperialism. In these grand projects of global white power and conquest, "Christian" became synonymous with free, white and civilized. "Heathen" meant that whole populations could be subjected to extermination, enslavement and exploitation.

The current and most popular image of Jesus as created by Warner Sallman in 1941 depicts the former as a white "American." Here, American exceptionalism, Manifest Destiny, and rise as an Imperial power were ordained as being one with Jesus, and a blessing from God for a country whose elites imagined it to be a "shining city on the hill."

This logic is perfectly cogent: a racial project of exploitation and enslavement of non-whites by Europeans, one legitimized by a belief in the natural inferiority of people of color, the pseudo-science of the Great Chain of Being, a belief in the Curse of Ham as well as other myths, must, for reasons of practical necessity, be predicated on the existence of a "white" God.

A twisted complement to how the whiteness of Jesus has been historically naturalized in the West is how the same ahistorical image adorns many African-American churches (as well as those of Latinos, Asians, Native Americans, and others) in this country and throughout the world.

Is there any greater example of the twisted nature of the color line, and the power of internalized white supremacy, than how many millions of black and brown folks kneel and pray before the image of a white god -- an image which has long been used to justify and legitimate white supremacy and racial exploitation? Black and white Christians pray to the same mythologized and historically inaccurate image of Jesus; yet, they do not pray or worship together in the same churches.

Research shows that white audiences will not watch TV shows or movies which they judge to have too many people of color as characters. A historically accurate version of the Bible, which embraced the demographic realities of the era such as HBO's epic series, Rome, would be a revelation. Unfortunately, many in the American public would be unwilling to hear such a basic truth, for it would be too upsetting for those who have internalized whiteness and white privilege even on matters of religion and faith.

America, On Your Knees

President Rick Perry

by SAUL LANDAU

 

 

Imagine this scene: 3 million Christians brought together in Washington DC in 2013 by incoming President Perry – to pray to God to stop warming the climate and promising in return to stop sinning: having abortions, practicing homosexuality – even same sex marrying.

Since Perry announced his disbelief in man’s contribution to climate change and has attributed the hurricanes, tsunamis, droughts, floods, earthquakes and fires (best of all) to God, the Texas governor called a prayer meeting in Houston.

On August 7, standing on a stage surrounded by more than 30,000 Christians, Perry – picture Burt Lancaster playing Elmer Gantry — beseeched Jesus Christ to bless and guide the nation’s military and political leaders and “those who cannot see the light in the midst of all the darkness.” His address to the prayer rally, which he sponsored as he “weighed” his decision to run for president, characterized the man and his constituency.

In the cadence of televangelists, dressed in his tailor-made duds, and with the solemnity of a Jerry Falwell, he looked toward the sky: “Lord, you are the source of every good thing.”  Perry then lowered his head, with eyes closed and put his mouth to the microphone. “You are our only hope and we stand before you today in awe of your power and in gratitude for your blessings, and humility for our sins. Father, our heart breaks for America. We see discord at home. We see fear in the marketplace. We see anger in the halls of government, and as a nation we have forgotten who made us, who protects us, who blesses us and for that we cry out for your forgiveness.”

Perry then read Bible passages. “There is hope for America,” Perry’s website says. “It lies in heaven, and we will find it on our knees.”

Members of the public rose; others fell to their knees. Some let tears pour down their cheeks; others wiped them away. Heads nodded. Voices shouted: “Amen!”

Perry absorbed evangelical modes of communication in his Texas pores, mixing Jesus and flag as interchangeable icons. “Like all of you, I love this country deeply,” he confessed. “Indeed, the only thing that you love more is the living Christ.”

If Perry’s honesty competed with religious rhetoric, he might have added money to convert his love duet into a ménage a trois. Behind his rally and his candidacy stood the American Family Association pushing its collage of ultra right evangelical doctrines – denouncing the usual parade of horrors, like homosexual marriage, abortion and evolution and several multi millionaires like Bob Perry (no relation) of Swift Boat, smear John Kerry notoriety.

Coincidentally, Perry has added lower corporate and wealth taxes and de-regulation to his gun-totin’ religious liturgy.

“It is a monstrous lie,” he orated at the September 7 Republican presidential, non-musical hoot nanny. “It is a Ponzi scheme to tell our kids that are 25 or 30 years old today, you’re paying into a program that’s going to be there.”

The dictionary defines Ponzi scheme as “An investment swindle in which some early investors are paid off with money put up by later ones in order to encourage more and bigger risks.”

I’ve been receiving Social Security for ten years and I naively don’t consider it an investment. I paid a little all my working life and now I receive my monthly check like most of my fellow 54 million recipients.

Since the Social Security system had collected more than it had to pay out, Congress allowed it to lend money to pay for other government items – like wars. It got paid back in Treasury securities, which now total more than $2.5 trillion.

Ponzi schemes – like Bernie Madoff’s — come unglued after a short time and investors lose their money. The Ponzi schemer hides or gets arrested.

Yes, Social Security faces funding problem 25 plus years down the road, but the accountants think they can manage it before 2040.

Like most of the Republican aspirants, Perry implores his audience to not trust government and put faith in God’s creation: the free market and Christian prayer.

Did God listen and observe Perry’s giant prayer meeting to beg and pray for rain? If He did, ponder his response. On September 7, 57 wildfires had torched more than 1,000 homes across dryer-than-a-bone Texas. People died. Thousands went to shelters. Water rationing went into effect. One fire, raging out of control, even crept up on Austin, the state’s capitol.

As of September 7, 100,000 plus acres had burned and Texas stood as the Rain Starved instead of the Lone Star State. Firefighters had not contained the blaze, Perry admitted. He didn’t say he had endorsed cutting funding from $30 million to $7 million for volunteer fire departments that combat wildfires.

As fires roared, Perry left for California’s Reagan Library to duel with Republican contenders –a higher purpose, for higher office. After all, as he has several times indicated, God talks to him.

Perhaps a more plausible explanation for his references to such Divine communications came from a sign on a St. Catherine’s Episcopal Church in Texas.

“Gov. Perry. God Here. The Voice In Your Head Is Not Me. Take Your Meds. Choir Practice Wed. 7 P.M. Sign up.”

What Did You Learn in Your Purposefully Dumbed Down Texas School Today?

Thursday, August 25, 2011 by the Austin American Statesman

by Craig Studer

 

Millions of Texas students head back to school this week confronted by a dramatically altered, state-mandated social studies curriculum.

The contentious hearings of the Texas State Board of Education received considerable attention in the spring of 2010, but seem to have fallen out of the public consciousness as the new school year begins. The new curriculum, officially called the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills, deserves renewed attention, as it will undoubtedly surprise most Texans.

The fiercest battle during the board's hearings was fought over the 11th-grade history curriculum, which in Texas is "United States History since 1877." The exception to that timeline is the new state-mandated "Celebrate Freedom Week," during which students will learn about our founding fathers. That sounds simple enough, except that the only founding fathers included in the curriculum are Benjamin Rush, John Hancock, John Jay, John Witherspoon, John Peter Muhlenberg, Charles Carroll and Jonathan Trumbull Sr. What about George Washington, Thomas Jefferson or John Adams? They are nowhere to be found in the new high school TEKS. Students apparently learned everything they need to know about them in eighth grade.

As part of the board's effort to emphasize the positives in American history, students will no longer learn about "American imperialism." Instead students will discuss "American expansionism" and come to understand how "missionaries moved the United States into the position of a world power." The board eliminated mention of our government's use of propaganda during World War I, and instead of analyzing Truman's decision to use the atomic bomb at the end of World War II, students will now analyze the development of the bomb. Additionally, students will now "evaluate efforts by international organizations to undermine U.S. sovereignty." The board included Estee Lauder in the state curriculum, but not George Washington.

Perhaps you have heard something about a labor movement in the 20th century? No longer will your children. The only reference to a 20th-century labor movement will come when learning about Cesar Chavez and Dolores Huerta. No mention of the Fair Labor Standards Act or the National Labor Relations Act. No mention of strikes or any labor dispute. The words "labor movement" were taken out of the TEKS. Perhaps there is not enough time because students must now "understand how the free enterprise system drives technological innovation ... such as cell phones, inexpensive personal computers and global positioning products."

Students will learn about the contributions of Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority. Maybe the students will read Falwell's claim that feminists and homosexuals were partially responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Phyllis Schlafly, the Heritage Foundation and the NRA are all included. Students will also be required to "discuss the meaning of ‘In God We Trust.' "

History in Texas classrooms will be decidedly different from when we were students. I never learned "both the positive and negative impacts of ... country and western music" in my high school history class. Where would you rate Estée Lauder in terms of historical importance to our country? If you think she is one of the 68 most important historical figures, you agree with the board. Yes, the board included her in the state curriculum, but not George Washington.

I also never learned that the findings of the House Committee on Un-American Activities were confirmed, perhaps because it is not true. It puts teachers in an awkward position by asking them to teach something that is historically inaccurate. I will not have to deal with that issue in some of my classes because my Advanced Placement U.S. History classes are not required to follow the state curriculum. I am guessing that the Texas Education Agency realizes that students could never pass national exams while learning the state-mandated curriculum.

During the next decade, we should not be surprised when university professors lament that Texas students are not prepared for college. Malcolm X once said, "Education is the passport to the future, for tomorrow belongs to those who prepare for it today." You might remember a historical figure named Malcolm X, but your children won't. Malcolm X is not in the social studies curriculum in Texas. Now if you will excuse me, I have to do some research on Estée Lauder. She was not mentioned in any of my graduate history courses, either.

The Marketing of Rick Perry

August 23, 2011

 

Self-Destruction in Action?

by ROBERT FANTINA

Texas Governor Rick Perry has ridden into the GOP presidential race on his high horse,  threatening to ‘get ugly’ with Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve Chairman, stopping just short of accusing him of treason, and catering, as expected, to the most radical of the radical right wing.

Mr. Perry, for some bizarre reason, has captured the twisted imaginations of those who combine a brand of Christianity that Jesus Christ wouldn’t recognize, with a heavy worship of capitalism, and an irrational fear of anyone not white, Anglo-Saxon Protestant thrown in for good measure.

As he goes about spreading hate and intolerance, both of which play so well to the Tea Party, Mr. Perry often chooses to relinquish facts; again, a trait welcome to the far right wing. This is displayed in a variety of ways that can be seen by looking at some of the governor’s ‘accomplishments’ and statements, as taken from the ‘Perry for President’ website:

“Rick Perry will finally force Washington to fulfill its constitutional duty to secure our international borders.”

One of the Tea Party’s pet peeves is illegal immigration, that dastardly practice of allowing immigrants to slip through the extensive U.S. borders, especially that with Mexico, thus enabling them to wreak untold amounts of havoc as they bus tables, work on construction crews, and cut grass.

In Januray of 2011, a U.S. missionary couple, Sam and Nancy Davis, working in Mexico, were pursued by bandits, possibly seeking to steal their truck, valued at $50,000. As Mr. Davis tried to flee, the bandits began shooting, hitting and killing Mrs. Davis. In response, Mr. Perry’s spokeswoman, Katherine Cesinger, said Mrs. Davis’ murder underscores the need for greater border security. “’How many Americans are going to have to die for the federal government to pay attention and realize they need to secure the border,’ she said.”

The fact that this tragic shooting occurred at least 70 miles south of the Mexican/US border does not seem to concern Mr. Perry. He did not comment on crime in Mexico; the danger of driving flashy vehicles through areas known for criminal activity; the folly and accompanying risks of attempting to outrun murderous car thieves, etc. No, he seemed to see a crime that occurred in Mexico as demonstrating the need to ‘secure the border.’ Perhaps he is blaming the Davises for crossing into Mexico; after all, one must assume that if the border is ‘secure,’ no one could pass from either side to the other.

“No other candidate for President – Republican or Democrat – can match Rick Perry’s record on job creation.”

The website goes on to say that 40% of new jobs created in the U.S. since June of 2009 have been in Texas. This may be true, but one must not consider rushing off to Texas to achieve the great American dream (whatever that is). Most of those jobs pay minimum wage, and few carry health benefits.  Also, industry has been attracted to Texas due to its limited environmental and safety regulations, bringing these businesses from other U.S. states. So if a voter wants to see reduced environmental and safety regulations made the law of the land, and seeks the creation of millions of jobs that pay minimum wage, Mr. Perry is the right candidate. So what if people will not be able to own homes, send their children to college, or get medical care? At least they will be working!

“Rick Perry believes the best way for the federal government to improve healthcare is to stimulate job creation so more Americans are covered by employer-sponsored health plans.”

One wonders how job creation is related to employer-sponsored health plans. A generation ago, health care was one of the standard benefits offered to employees; this has not been the case for years. Anyone who has been employed by a large corporation in the last 25 years is familiar with co-pays, deductibles, exclusion clauses, endless paperwork, etc. Employers are under no obligation to provide health care to their employees.

Also, with all the jobs Mr. Perry claims to have created in Texas, he might notice that most of them do not include health care. Why, one might reasonably ask, should he be trusted to provide this miracle to the entire United States, when he has failed to do so in Texas?

“If elected, Perry will repeal Obamacare.”

And, one presumes, cross his fingers and hope that employers decide to provide medical coverage to all employees. One wonders what color the sky is on Mr. Perry’s planet.

“Rick Perry believes in American exceptionalism.”

Although interpreted in different ways, American exceptionalism is a throwback to ‘Manifest Destiny,’ that belief that the United States was divinely ordained to run roughshod over the rest of the world, making up rules as it went along that only other nations need follow; violate them at their peril.

Mr. Perry “rejects the notion our president should apologize for our country but instead believes allies and adversaries alike must know that America seeks peace from a position of strength. We must strengthen our diplomatic relationships, and stand firm with our allies against our common enemies.”

So when the U.S. embarks on a military misadventure that its major allies shun, then causes a civil war which kills hundreds of thousands of people, destroys a country’s infrastructure and creates strife between sects that had managed to live in relative peace together for generations, there is no need for an apology? When said military action displaces millions of people, causes the U.S. president who spawned it to be seen as the second most dangerous person in the world, and results in the U.S. being hated around the globe, no kind of apology would be necessary? Oh, that’s right: American Exceptionalism. The U.S. is allowed to do whatever it pleases, and is exempt from considering how its actions might negatively impact anyone, including its own citizens.

To say that ‘America seeks peace’ would be laughable, were it not so astoundingly tragic. When a country arbitrarily overthrows democratically-elected governments, supports covert actions against others, and invades a nation whose only crime is the possession of large amounts of oil, it is hard to see it as seeking peace.

And so it goes. Mr. Perry is seen as a viable alternative to the current GOP frontrunner, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, the cardboard cutout of himself who has the effrontery to be a Mormon, if one can imagine such a horror. Mr. Romney, additionally, must overcome the crime of having provided healthcare to the people of Massachusetts, and having actually supported the rights of same-sex couples. No, says the Tea Party, which now controls the once-proud Republican Party; Mr. Romney may be next in line for the nomination-coronation, but he is obviously ineligible. It is Mr. Perry, the darling of the evangelical right, who will wear the bright cape, with the big ‘TP’ emblazoned on his chest (that’s for Tea Party, not toilet paper, in case you were wondering), who will save the day.

But it is not yet over; the fat lady has not yet sung. Former Alaska Governor and 2008 Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin seems ready to throw her battered hat into the ring, and we mustn’t forget Minnesota Representative Michelle Bachman, known mainly for her valiant campaign to restore light-bulb freedom of choice. Ah yes, the brightest lights (speaking of bulbs) may still be on the horizon.

President Obama is seen as vulnerable, due mainly to the sputtering U.S. economy. But the GOP may want to take a lesson from their own party in 1964, and the Democrats in 1972 (probably not, but let’s make the suggestion anyway). In 1964, the Republicans nominated the far-right Arizona Senator, Barry Goldwater, wildly popular with the right, but not even tolerated by anyone else. He was decisively defeated by an abominable president, Lyndon Johnson. In 1972, the Democrats, always happy to make their own mistakes rather than learn from the mistakes of others, nominated South Dakota Senator George McGovern, revered by the left wing, but by no one else. He was soundly defeated by another awful president, Richard Nixon.

One might say what they will about the disappointing (at best) administration of Mr. Obama. But when opposed by either of the two Republican clowns mentioned here, or any of the others currently awaiting their turn in the three-ring circus called the Republican Party, he begins to regain some of the luster of his first campaign.

And so it goes. Another U.S. election campaign farce is underway. At least the late-night talk show hosts will have plenty of material to work with for the next 14 months.

Rick Perry’s Hardcore History of Investment in Porn

August 16, 2011 - PoliticusUSA

By Sarah Jones

Here’s the story of how Rick Perry’s name became synonymous with “Teens with Tits” in some circles. I’ve tried to make this safe for work, but if it’s not, blame Rick Perry, for such are the perils of reporting on good “Christians” like Mr James Richard Perry. If your employer has a problem with this, tell them to see Rick Perry; it’s his money trail we’re following.

Perhaps when you see Rick Perry’s bouffant pompadour, you don’t immediately think “cheerleader”, but pom-pon carrier he was, albeit for Texas A & M instead of the Bush Yale pom-pons that heralded the destruction of America’s economy. But you’re all right with pom-pons on a man. To each their own. You might not be OK with the whole Lieutenant Governor to George W Bush thing. You might not be OK with Perry’s theocratic beliefs. But truthfully, when you picture the handsome, smirking Rick Perry and his Texas down home drawl, are you thinking about pornography?

“Teens Never Say No” kind of pornography? How about “Teens with Tits”? No? How about “Bisexual Barebacking Vol. 1” or “Big Tit Brotha Lovers 6”?

Kinda makes you all warm and family values-ish.

Rick Perry, God’s Chosen to pray Texas into prosperity, invested as a private citizen in Movie Gallery corporation to the tune of between 5-10k according to his 1995 personal financial reports. Movie Gallery was, at that time, the largest distributor of porn in America, and able to sell and rent regular videos for much cheaper than the competition due to their heady porn profit. The ultra conservative American Family Association (AFA), a self-described “Christian organization promoting the biblical ethic of decency in American society with primary emphasis on TV and other media” known for “(i)nitiating, encouraging Christian Activism,” but also now an officially designated hate group according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, begged the government to investigate Movie Gallery.

In the ensuing years, the AFA went so far as to undertake a national ad campaign to draw attention to Movie Gallery’s porn practices, and wrote the DoJ and state AG’s demanding, “DOJ and State Prosecutors throughout the country should begin immediate investigations to determine if the products and practices of Movie Gallery Video Stores violate Federal and State laws regarding distribution of obscene material. Movie Gallery is one of America’s largest retailers of hard-core sex videos. Their attempt to acquire family friendly neighborhood Hollywood Video stores across the U.S. poses a serious threat to our communities!”

The AFA has also boycotted such companies as 7-Eleven, Abercrombie & Fitch, American Airlines, American Girl, Blockbuster Video, Burger King, Calvin Klein, Carl’s Jr., Clorox, Comcast, Crest, Ford, Hallmark Cards, Kmart, Kraft Foods, S. C. Johnson & Son, Microsoft, MTV, Mary Kay, NutriSystem, Old Navy, IKEA, Sears, Pampers, Procter & Gamble, Target, Tide, Walt Disney Company, and PepsiCo with varying degrees of success.

Burt Orange Reports said it appeared as if local authorities in Texas dragged their feet responding to the cries for investigations, in spite of the fact that The Politics In Porn (note that this link from 2006 is no longer working and the domain name is now available — don’t say I never did anything for you) wrote, “Government Officials who have been given the evidence of this illegal operation are … the U.S. District attys for the Northern Districts of Alabama and Texas.”

Not only is the AFA is a core constituency of an extreme, far Christian-right candidate, but as Hrafnkell Haraldsson reported for PoliticusUSA, Perry teamed up with the AFA for his recent prayer day rally, “The Response, a Call to Prayer for a Nation in Crisis.” Just this March, we saw then Presidential candidacy hopefuls Newt Gingrich, Haley Barbour and Mike Huckabee courting the AFA by appearing on Bryan Fisher’s radio show. So it’s puzzling that Perry invested his money in something he must have been aware violated the very core of his alleged pro-life, pro-family, pro-conservative values. However, Perry put his holdings into a blind trust in 1998, and hence, no one knows if he is still profiting off of pornography. Perhaps the AFA doesn’t care if their Presidential pick is profiting off of pornography so allegedly obscene that they demanded the DoJ investigate.

Rick Perry later passed laws to help companies like Movie Gallery avoid “frivolous” tort suits, after they were sued for allegedly violating the law by illegally distributing porn across state lines. This move was seen by some as a move to protect his investment in Movie Gallery, as he used the very word Movie Gallery used (“frivolous”) regarding the lawsuits they were fighting at the time.

Written on Jun 26, 2006, the Burnt Orange Report elaborated on Perry’s porn problem:

Coincidentally, Rick Perry used similar language when signing the tort-reform bill that limited the liability—thereby increasing profits—of companies like Movie Gallery. Perry said the bill would “remov[e] the incentive for trial lawyers to file frivolous lawsuits.” Continuing Perry said, “we will save thousands of jobs, generate millions in new revenue to the state;” only some of those jobs come at the price of young girl’s physical and psychological health.

The AFA has undertaken a nationwide campaign—advertising in USA Today and Washington Post—urging government officials to investigate Movie Gallery. Many local authorities—like the U.S. Attorney in the Northern District of Texas—are allegedly dragging their feet. With Gov. Perry owning stock in Movie Gallery, his financial interests contravene the success of any such investigation….

“Titles that Gov. Perry helps bring to Texas’ shelves include Teens with Tits Vol. 1, Teen Power Vol. 4, and Teens Never Say No.

While many disagree over society’s correct policy towards pornography, Perry’s political posturing caters to pornography’s opponents. Duplicitously, Rick Perry’s supposed politics contravene the interests of his own pocketbook. There is the Governor who endorses a plan to monitor sex offenders with satellites; then there is businessman who enjoys profits by funding such titles as Bisexual Barebacking Vol. 1 and Big Tit Brotha Lovers 6. There is the proud husband and father who announced an award of $7.4 Million to the S.T.O.P. Violence Against Women Act programs; then there is the man who invested in North America’s largest pornography distributor. In the coming weeks, there will doubtlessly be the ignorant, apologetic Governor, but under that thin veneer of good hair is the cunning financier who still hides his assets in a blind trust fund.

Given that traditionally conservative states consume the most online porn, according to the Journal of Economic Perspectives (which looked at zip codes of credit cards used for online adult entertainment), we can’t assume that just because a group is against something in public they aren’t engaging in it in private. But the Dominionists like Perry and Bachmann are taking us a step down even from that perilous perch — to a place where women are expected to be subservient to the men in their life.

If you’re still slightly confused as to why the AFA isn’t calling Rick Perry out, and how conservatives can ignore such glaring hypocrisy, it’s because they worship at the altar of a political movement based on belief in authoritarianism and a sense of entitlement for “the Chosen”. Anything that Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, or Sarah Palin do is OK. God said so.

And their cult-like followers will contort themselves into a breathless internet rage in order to explain to you that none of this matters, what really matters is that the President is a Muslim Socialists Kenyan Nazi. Apparently this line of “thinking” suffices for them because they are in a cult based on belief and not real values, but also because they have bought into the meme that these special leaders are exempt from accountability for what they say. This is why you see the outrage over “gotcha” journalism from the same folks.

What kind of man are we dealing with in Rick Perry? Is he still profiting off of what the AFA calls obscene pornography? Is he still making money off of titles like “Teens with Tits”? In keeping with this line of inquiry into his purported “family values”, we note that Perry also kept on the director of the Texas Film Commission who was disciplined for sexual harassment…twice.

The Statesman reported, “Gov. Rick Perry’s outgoing director of the Texas Film Commission has been allowed to stay on the job despite being disciplined for sexual harassment in 2009 and after a subsequent investigation found similar behavior again this year.”

What disturbs me about these two facts is how well they dovetail with the Dominionists’ ideas about women being subservient to the patriarch.

The twin balls of decorative fluff known as the cheerleader’s Pom-pons aptly sum up the depth of Rick Perry’s alleged Christian family values. On one hand, we have a man invested in and profiting off of what the AFA called “obscene pornography” and a man who allowed a man twice found guilty of sexual harassment to remain in his government position. On the other hand, this same man calls himself a “family-values” Christian, and nary a peep comes from the Right to call him out.

It’s not about whether you agree with conservative values or not (but this is often how the conservatives distract people from calling their leaders out, by making it about the alleged values rather than the failure to uphold said values), but rather whether or not the candidate actually stands for what they say they stand for.

If Rick Perry doesn’t walk the talk of a conservative Christian, just what does Rick Perry stand for?

Rick Perry's Close Ties to Radical Evangelicals and Self-Proclaimed Prophets

A group of radical Christians and self-proclaimed prophets from a little-known movement called the New Apostolic Reformation have been quietly pushing for Perry. 

By Amy Goodman, Democracy Now!
Posted on August 14, 2011

AMY GOODMAN: Republican Governor Rick Perry of Texas is expected to announce Saturday he’ll be entering the presidential race. Perry will make the announcement at a conference in South Carolina organized by Erick Erickson’s  RedState.com. Perry is then scheduled to travel to New Hampshire, site of the first 2012 presidential primary, and then on to Iowa.

In 2000, Perry succeeded then-Governor George W. Bush, who resigned to become president. Perry went on to win three gubernatorial terms, in 2002, 2006 and 2010. Early Perry backers, at least presidential backers, have heralded him as being behind the so-called Texas economic miracle. This TV ad has already begun airing in Iowa.

JOBS FOR IOWA AD: What if we had a candidate for president with a real record of creating jobs, a conservative with proven leadership in tough times, the leader of a state that created more jobs in the past two years than the other 49 states combined, with no state income tax and no deficit, a decade of balanced budgets? What if we had a better option for president? We do. Rick Perry. Jobs for Iowa is responsible for the content of this advertising.

AMY GOODMAN: But many have questioned Governor Perry’s economic claims in Texas. The Pulitzer Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman pointed out recent economic data suggest the Texas budget gap is worse than New York’s, about as bad as California’s, not quite up to New Jersey levels.

Questions have also arisen over Governor Perry’s close ties to the radical wing of the Christian evangelical movement. On Saturday, Perry helped organize and spoke at a controversial seven-hour Christian prayer rally in Houston called "The Response: A Call to Prayer for a Nation in Crisis."

GOV. RICK PERRY: Father, our heart breaks for America. We see discord at home. We see fear in the marketplace. We see anger in the halls of government. And as a nation, we have forgotten who made us, who protects us, who blesses us. And for that, we cry out for Your forgiveness.

AMY GOODMAN: Governor Perry, leading the prayer session. It drew 30,000 participants, received national press. Little attention was paid to the Christian evangelicals Perry worked with to organize the event.

The Texas Observer has just published an explosive new article titled "Rick Perry’s Army of God." It exposes how a group of radical Christians and self-proclaimed prophets from a little-known movement known as New Apostolic Reformation have been quietly pushing for Perry to run for president. The author of the article, Forrest Wilder, is a staff reporter at theTexas Observer. He’s joining us from Austin.

Welcome to Democracy Now!, Forrest. Talk about this event that took place. And you were there. Describe what it was like.

FORREST WILDER: Well, the response was patterned after what’s "TheCall," and TheCall are events that are put on by a group by the same name out of Kansas City. They’re day-long events of prayer and fasting. They’re usually laced with pretty hardcore anti-abortion and anti-gay messages. There was a call recently where the leader of it, Lou Engle, called for a generation of martyrs. So, The Response, in its programming and its feel, was very similar to TheCall, and that’s largely because the folks that were organizing The Response, some of the primary organizers work for TheCall. So it was an explicitly not just Christian, but explicitly evangelical or fundamentalist-type rally—same kind of music, same sort of tone, same kind of themes that ran throughout the event, and a lot of, really, the same people that move in a certain circle on the religious right.

AMY GOODMAN: Talk about the people that Perry organized this event with, who they were, what they said. This was characterized in the mainstream media as very much a non-political event. You had a very different take on it.

FORREST WILDER: Well, as I write about in the article, the organizers and the endorsers of the event largely come out of what’s called the New Apostolic Reformation movement. And the founder of this movement, the sort of intellectual godfather, is a guy named Peter Wagner, and he’s termed it "the most radical change in the way of doing Christianity since the Protestant Reformation." Little bit of a grandiose statement, but it is really this movement that’s happening at the bleeding edge of evangelical Christianity in this country. And it wasn’t—it’s not really widely known, although it does have growing influence.

And I think one of the defining characteristics of it is this idea that there are modern-day prophets and apostles, that the prophets and apostles didn’t end in the Bible, and we have them now walking amongst us. And so, the leadership of the movement are self-proclaimed prophets and apostles. They hold themselves out as such, and they’re recognized as such by their followers. So this was, by and large, the set of individuals and organizations that were running The Response.

And, you know, another aspect of their sort of theology is this idea of the "Seven Mountains," and it’s a form of Christian dominionism. They’re not the only sort of tendency or movement within American Christianity that has a form of dominionism, but this one—this doctrine is kind of a little unusual. The Seven Mountains are basically the power centers of society, so government, family, media, arts and entertainment, education, and so on and so forth. And they believe that Christians, or a certain type of Christian, are to take control of the Seven Mountains and initiate, you know, godly government, biblical values, inject them into these institutions in preparation for the installation of the Kingdom of God on earth and Jesus’ return. So that’s kind of who Perry has thrown in with in this event.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to play another clip from the event. One official endorser of the Response prayer gathering was Cindy Jacobs, the self-declared Christian prophet. Earlier this year, she made headlines when she recorded a video declaring a connection between the repeal of "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell" and the sudden death of thousands of blackbirds in Arkansas.

CINDY JACOBS: According to biblical principles, a marriage is between a man and a woman. So, we have to say, what happens when a nation makes a decision that is against God’s principles? Well, often what happens is the nature itself will begin to talk to us. For instance, violent storms, flooding. There’s something interesting we have been watching. Let’s talk about this Arkansas pattern and say, could it be a pattern? We’re going to watch and see. But the blackbirds fell to the ground in Beebe, Arkansas. Well, the governor of Arkansas’s name is Beebe. And also, there was something put out of Arkansas called "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell," by a former governor, this was proposed, Bill Clinton.

AMY GOODMAN: That was Cindy Jacobs. Who is she?

FORREST WILDER: Cindy Jacobs is sort of one of the kind of leading prophets within the movement. She’s based out of Dallas. She frequently issues these type of prophecies. And they’re taken very seriously by those who follow her and admire her. I mean, she is sort of, you know, a rock star in this sort of prophetic circuit. She endorsed—she was an endorser of The Response, although I did not see her appear on stage. She certainly didn’t say anything. I don’t know if she was actually there, though some of the other prophets and apostles were.

And some of their prophecies are very specific. I mean, she has also said that she predicted the tsunamis in Japan, and not just that, but that that happened because the Japanese hadn’t sufficiently come to Christianity, so, in essence, God was punishing them. Peter Wagner, the founder of the movement, for example, when he was in Germany in 2001, God acted through him to end mad cow disease in Germany. So they actually think that they have some supernatural abilities, at least as God works through them, to do things in what they call "the natural." The natural is basically the real world. So they—the supernatural and the natural, for them, are constantly interacting, and they’re kind of the bridge between the two.

AMY GOODMAN: Forrest Wilder, let me play another clip. It’s Governor Rick Perry speaking at The Response prayer gathering in Houston. And talk about, afterwards, the significance of Perry’s use of language.

GOV. RICK PERRY: Blow the trumpet in Zion. Declare a holy fast. Call a sacred assembly. Gather the people. Consecrate the assembly. Bring together the elders. Gather the children. Gather the mothers, nurturing their children at the breast.

AMY GOODMAN: That’s Governor Rick Perry, who will be announcing for president, we expect, on Saturday. Forrest Wilder, what exactly is he saying?

FORREST WILDER: He’s reading from the Book of Joel, and it’s a part of the Bible, Old Testament, that is very important to the New Apostolic Reformation movement. In fact, the basis for The Response comes straight out of Joel chapter 2. And the fundamental idea here is that, just as in—was described in the Book of Joel, they have an agricultural collapse, they have drought, they have economic woes. They have—they’re having all sorts of problems as a society, and the solution to that is to get on one’s knees and repent to God, who, if your repentance is sufficient enough, will act and, you know, restore the natural good order of things.

There’s a lot of things actually going on in that particular clip that you played, of—one, note that people are, you know, sort of cheering, cheering it on, just this reading of Scripture, very energetically, because there’s all sorts of meaning that’s loaded up into that, into Joel and those particular verses. For example, "Blow the trumpet in Zion." This is a Christian Zionist—a phrase that’s very important to them. For example, John Hagee—he’s one of the leading Christian Zionists, he has a megachurch down in San Antonio—is very involved in, you know, sort of right-wing foreign policy stuff around Israel. That’s a verse that you hear a lot at their events, at their church services, at their political events. And it’s also a popular song. It’s kind of the main—I don’t know if it’s the name of the song, but that’s the theme that runs throughout the song, "Blow the trumpet in Zion." And it’s about—you know, it’s about the role that Israel plays in their End Times eschatology and the role that the Jews play in fulfilling biblical prophecy and ultimately the return of Christ and a thousand-year reign. So, you know—

AMY GOODMAN: We just have—we just have a minute, and I just wanted to get to Don Finto, and this fits right in with what you were talking about, also the issue, when talking about Jews, of the conversion of Jews.

FORREST WILDER: Yeah, Don Finto, he’s an evangelist who works in Israel, and his—basically what he does is try to bring Jews to Jesus. And again, this fits in with this notion that there must be a believing majority in Israel so that Jesus can come back. And so, at The Response, he was on stage basically calling for a mass conversion of Jews. And at one point he brought up a Messianic Jewish rabbi from Dallas, a guy named Marty Waldman. Waldman didn’t say anything. He was sort of there as a prop, as a signal, to sort of underscore and reinforce this idea that Jews in Israel are coming to Christ and that they will spur a global revival of Christianity, and then, ultimately, you know, start fulfilling some of the biblical prophecy for this End Times scenario that they have. That was totally missed, and I didn’t see any mention of that in the media, but it was an important thing that was happening there.

AMY GOODMAN: Forrest Wilder, we’re going to have to leave it there. Thanks so much for being with us. We’ll link to your piece in the Texas Observer, "Rick Perry’s Army of God."

Arrogant Christian Leaders Want Their Religion to Take Over the World

Many Christian leaders have decided that their religion should be dominant in the world. Where did they get that idea? Certainly not the teachings of Jesus.
By Rev. Howard Bess, Consortium News
Posted on October 5, 2010

Somehow most Christian leaders have decided that their particular brand of religion should be dominant in the world and that the world would attain its greatest ideal if everyone were Christian.

Though there is material in the Bible to support this supremacist view, there is also a great body of Bible literature that looks at life from a very different perspective. According to this alternate point-of-view, the calling of the people of God is to be a servant people.

I have long maintained that the Bible should be read and studied with a recognition that both sides of the arguments are found in the same collection of writings, that the Bible is not monolithic on this and other key questions. The task of the Bible student is to join in the argument and to bring the argument to the most modern of settings.

The dominance side of the argument is rooted in the Bible story of King David, tracing his life from a humble shepherd boy to supposedly the most powerful king in the Near East. According to the story, he claimed power as a bloody, conquering tyrant and established a great capital city in Jerusalem as home to Jehovah God.

This story (which many historians consider largely mythical) has become the model and symbol of all Christian dominionists.

The servant side of the Bible tradition is rooted not in Jerusalem but in Babylon. Four hundred years after the establishment of Jerusalem as the capital city of Israel and its God, Babylonia, a powerful neighbor to the east, conquered the last vestige of the Israelite nation, capturing Jerusalem and leveling the Holy Temple.

Some Israelites were carried off to the City of Babylon to be slave labor for the new dominant nation in the Near East. In that setting, the people of God pondered their role in the world. With dominance no longer a possibility, they concluded that their new calling from God was to serve the world rather than to dominate the world.

Which of these ancient Israelite traditions represents the will of the God that Christians, whose religion derives from a Jewish rabbi, should claim as their own? This is the long-running argument that ferments in the Bible material.

For generations, most Christian churches and individual Christians side-step this argument by focusing instead on individual salvation as their primary concern and on temporal activities in the wider world. Many clergy joined the Chamber of Commerce and abandoned the simple brown robes of community servitude.

Meanwhile, in today's world of high-tech communications and rapid social changes, the very nature of Christian churches is in flux. Christianity has become a favorite subject of PhD theses, and the study of the present state of Christian churches is a popular subject for pollsters.

Recognizable patterns are presenting themselves. Most churches are still focused on getting people to heaven when they die. However, a sizeable number of Christian dominionists and nationalists have developed. They have stepped into the public square with full force.

Their message is not hidden: Return the nation to Christian roots! Give the Ten Commandments a place of equality with the Constitution! For the faithful, “God Bless America” has become a companion to “The Star Spangled Banner.” The Stars and Stripes and the Christian Flag have become siblings.

However, a new reformation movement, called the emergent church, has arisen to challenge Christian dominionists by following a different path marked by Jesus, the humble rabbi from Nazareth.

While there is a great diversity among these “emergents,” they tend to be very religious and committed to reading and studying the Bible and to celebrating their faith in prayer and song.

Most importantly, however, they have focused their attention on Jesus, who taught that greatness is found in being a servant, rather than on King David, who brutally crushed his enemies. Today, emergents are finding allies across the Christian spectrum.

A backdrop for this internal Christian debate has been 9/11, which has intensified the public discussion of diversity and heightened the awareness that the American population is more diverse than ever before. Immigrants with highly diverse backgrounds keep pounding on the American door.

Are Christians, from a position of righteous superiority, called to convert and dominate the strangers in our midst, or is our call to be a welcoming neighbor who seeks to be a servant of all?

An ancient argument is a lively argument in the 21st century.

The dangers of seeing America as a 'Christian nation'

Christian traditionalists see American freedom as derived from Christian faith. That flies in the face of the historical record – and it distorts today's political debates.

By Stuart Whatley | July 20, 2010

Washington —It may be a sign of the times that on Billy Graham Parkway in Charlotte, N.C, from whence the famed evangelist hailed, the North Carolina Secular Society recently unveiled a suggestively secular billboard: a flag with the words “One Nation Indivisible.”

It is also a sign of the times that this message was promptly doctored by vandals with the words, “UNDER GOD” – a qualifier that wasn’t added to the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954.

With a creeping rise in secularists and nonbelievers today, some American Christian traditionalists see a politically existential threat, leading to reactions such as those from a few of Charlotte’s faithful. One is reminded of John Kennedy Toole’s cantankerously amusing character, Ignatius J. Reilly, in “Confederacy of Dunces” – combative towards modern culture and nostalgic for the halcyon days of Thomas Aquinas. This traditionalist camp is deeply perturbed by new threads in the social fabric and insistent that America is a Christian nation – demographically as well as politically.

This tension transcends a historical argument about the roots of American liberty. It goes to the heart of some of today’s most trenchant political debates, such as same-sex marriage, prayers at town meetings, US foreign policy toward Israel, and end-of-life issues germane to health-care reform.

Debate over America's Christian roots

Is America really a Christian nation?

Demographics give a clear answer. In 2008, 76 percent of Americans called themselves “Christian.” That’s down 10 percentage points since 1990, but it’s still an overwhelming and defining majority. Meanwhile, just 1.6 percent of Americans professed to be agnostics or atheists, more than double the amount in 1990.

History gives a more-muddled answer. The United States’ political origin as a “Christian nation” is a far more contentious issue, often reduced to each side drawing lines in the sand with fanciful single-factor readings of complex past events. A prime example comes from Jonah Goldberg, writing in the latest issue of Reason: “Our constitutional order rests on the conviction that we are endowed by our creator with certain rights. Both the abolitionist and civil rights movements were religious in nature.”

Mr. Goldberg’s oblique claim belongs to those who see American freedom as a Christian brand – available for all, but religiously trademarked nonetheless. But those who state outright that Christianity was the driving force behind the settling and political conception of the United States rely on contrived historicism.

Insidious implications

There are insidious intellectual implications to maintaining such a position: namely, the view that Christianity itself plays a defining, prerequisite role not just in the character and culture of America, but in its philosophical embrace of individual liberty as well.

A hefty segment of American Christians believes that its specific version of God is the inspiration for all men’s conception of freedom. If the United States is a wholly Christian nation then the syllogism follows that the liberty it affords to all is specifically Christian-furnished.

Indeed, the Declaration of Independence does make quick mention of God and a Creator, but not one of its 27 specific grievances has anything to do with religious liberty, and the nature of that “Creator” is hopelessly vague. Most everyone for whom rights were secured at the drafting and signing of the United States Constitution was a Christian, but that document makes no mention of any god. And historically, some of the first settlers to America – Christian separatist pilgrims – were indeed seeking religious liberty, but they arrived at Plymouth 13 years after European bullionist policies had already sent the Virginia Company to settle Jamestown.

So, did Christian culture or religiosity alone derive American notions of liberty? Christianity has long been a mercurial political instrument used to justify the rule of despots and democrats alike, depending on the century.

When the Roman Emperor Constantine first brought Christianity into the political fold, his motivation was purely autocratic. And most of the centuries of Roman Catholic rule that followed were not kind to individual liberty. The 16th-century Reformation challenged the extant church-state alliance and certainly embraced a fresh platform of human individuality in religious affairs, but to say that Protestantism championed democratic political liberties – as many do – goes too far.

Martin Luther and his immediate followers opposed all calls for a popular revolution and, according to the English historian Lord Acton, “constantly condemned the democratic literature that arose in the second age of the Reformation.” According to Acton, even John Calvin, despite his moderate republican leanings, saw the general populace as “unfit to govern themselves,” and instead advocated a form of aristocratic rule.

Thus historical arguments for Christianity’s role in securing the modern American notion of freedom are seriously impaired, as there is equally compelling evidence opposed as in support.

Of course, the “Christian nation” argument also asserts that, despite its past shortcomings, it is Christian ecumenism itself that advises individual liberty and equal rights. Indeed, an important facet of Christian belief is free will under God. This seems to align with previous understandings of freedom, which often centered on individual agency.

Aristotle defined it quite simply as, “to live as one wants.” Unfortunately, Christianity failed through much of its history to extend this position beyond personal, household religiosity. By contrast, at its outset, the notion of American freedom was predominantly political and populist in nature.

As the 20th-century philosopher John Dewey observed, “the freedom for which our forefathers fought was primarily freedom from a fairly gross and obvious form of oppression, that of arbitrary political power exercised from a distant center.”

With this in mind, Dewey points out that American freedom at the time of the Revolution could essentially be boiled down to a libertarian skepticism of government generally, and the right to vote.

The threat from Christian majoritarianism

This formulation was not without complications. Dewey saw freedom as a moving target – “an eternal goal [that] has to be forever struggled for and won anew.” Indeed, as Tocqueville realized early on, strict majoritarianism in the absence of effective government to safeguard individual liberties has just as much potential for tyranny as any other form of rule.

Presumably, those in the majority who assert that the United States is a Christian nation prefer it this way. If they already see American freedom as derived from their own faith, then why shouldn’t they?

The dangerous implications of thinking in such a way should be obvious. A case in point is this year’s Texas school board curriculum revisions, which will recast American history in Christian terms and dangerously undermine accepted science.

Because the Texas board is a parliamentary body subject to majority vote and comprised predominantly of traditionalist Christians, these deliberations fulfilled Dewey and Tocqueville’s warnings, as well as an observation from H.L. Mencken, who described American democracy as “a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.” It can be easily argued that this is a majoritarianism that does not adequately comport with the rights of the religiously neutral minority.

Seeing American freedom as Christian freedom sets the stage for political battles much larger than Texas school books and secular billboards. The historical debate over the Christianity or secularism of the Founders will continue to be caviled over ad infinitum. More urgent and insidious is the claim by members of one side that they have first dibs to the freedom all should equally enjoy.