As the GOP implodes

Now that the right-wing seems to have lost its collective mind and the GOP is imploding in a vast sea of bibles and batshit, maybe it would be a good time to wonder: What would "Mr. Conservative", Barry Goldwater, think about Sarah Palin and the religious right?

“I don’t have any respect for the Religious Right.”
“Every good Christian should line up and kick Jerry Falwell’s ass.”
“The religious factions will go on imposing their will on others”
“A woman has a right to an abortion.”
“I am a conservative Republican,” Barry Goldwater wrote in a 1994 Washington Post essay, “but I believe in democracy and the separation of church and state.”

Goldwater on the Repulican Party and the religious right:

"Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them. .....

The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom.... I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are?... I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of "conservatism.""

Just sayin'.

Having it both ways

Rob Breakenridge of the Calgary Herald is a little taken aback to discover what most of us have known all along, that the religious right isn't quite as committed to "free speech" as they like to pretend they are. Sure, they talk the "free speecher" talk, but when it comes to walking the walk, they have been weighed, they have been measured, and they have been found wanting:

"Given the number of instances where conservative Christians have been called to task and even prosecuted for their words -- Bishop Fred Henry, Rev. Stephen Boissoin, Hugh Owens, Catholic Insight magazine, the Christian Heritage Party -- it's not surprising to see the so-called "religious right" mobilize in support of freedom of expression." [...]

"However, the religious right needs to decide just how committed it is to freedom of expression. If you haven't the stomach for the fight, best to sit it out.

Last week, the aforementioned Canada Family Action Coalition demanded that the federal government step in and revoke the broadcast license of a new Canadian adult film channel. CFAC president Charles McVety describes the existence of Northern Peaks as being "to the public detriment" and fears the adult channel will "corrupt minds."

In other words, the approach of the CFAC on this issue of "offensive content" is really no different from the approach of the pro-censorship crowd on other matters of "offensive content."

Whereas supporters of human rights commissions believe we can engineer a society devoid of "hate," the anti-porn moralizers believe we can engineer a society devoid of "immorality.""

Hypocrisy: it's what's for dinner.

"42" isn't the answer to everything...

Saturday started on a bad enough note for the fetus fetishists, when Justice Beverley McLachlin took their mewling complaints about her supposed involvement in the Morgentaler Order of Canada straight out to the woodshed for a good flogging. The revelation that McLachlin had nothing to do with the Morgentaler appointment left the "42 religious groups" who sought her impeachment too busy wiping egg from their faces to respond to Judge Bev's righteous smackdown.

But while the MSM dutifully continued to refer to the "42 religious groups", some of us idly wondered just what "42 groups" really meant. Bene D published a list of all the groups behind the complaint, and it turned out that some of them weren't groups at all, but individuals and businesses. It was already a given that a few of the groups probably had some serious overlap -- different names, but basically run by and representing the same people. It's an American strategy that McVety imported to Canada -- establish a shitload of groups, coalitions and organizations to make the religious right "grassroots" look bigger and more important than it really is. So it was assumed that the "42 religious groups" were probably less than the sum of their parts.

Then Buckets got interested.

Oh fuck.

At that point, the fetus fetishists' day just went from bad to worse.

As he started researching and cross-referencing the groups on the list of 42 and eliminating individuals and overlap, Buckets found the number of legitimate "groups" coming down a bit... and a bit more... and more... and even more... and still more... at this point, who knows how low it will go?

So what we have here is a small coalition of religious right ideologues, misrepresenting themselves as "42 groups", erroneously filing a complaint seeking the removal of a Supreme Court Judge. That's serious fuckery -- serious enough that the MSM should be asking some very pointed questions about these people, their organizations, their tax status, and why they were able to push this as far as they did under such false pretenses. Will they?

UPDATE: Down down down it goes, where it stops, who the fuck knows?