Tag Archives: fundamentalist

RINOS and CINOS

As an atheist I don’t really put much stock in the pope. Even Pope Francis. This one seems reasonable and actually seems intent on following the spirit of Christianity. An oddity. And as such he opens himself  up to the hate groups and fundamentalists. Did I say “and” ? Which lead me to think about the difference between the “real” Christians and  false Christians.  Which lead me to think about the RINOS.

A RINO, according to the rightwing of the GOP, is a person who is a Republican In Name Only. That would  be someone who supports moderation and compromise as opposed to all  out warfare.

Some examples of RINOS would  be Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Bush 1 and 2, both Romneys and any other politician who is unwilling to shut down the government in a hissy fit.  RINOS are considered traitors to the imaginary GOP inhabited by fundamentalist ministers, Tea Party radicals, birthers and the uber-rich.

RINOS are seen as worst than liberals in some way, They are traitors.

Of course,  in reality it is the RINOS  that are true to the GOP principles.  Conservative. Moderate. Willing to compromise. Empathetic to the powerless and poor. Pro small business.

Which brings us to the CINOS.

The CINOS are those who, in my opinion, are Christians in Name Only. Those who  claim the label  of “Christian” but avoid , at all costs, any actions which are Christ-like.

Who are the CINOS?  Well,  Mike Huckabee is one.  And  homophobe Kim Davis. They want to  be considered “Christians” for all purposes EXCEPT living their lives as  Christians. All the wealthy,  Jesus-Will-Make-You-Rich fundamentalist preachers. All are CINOS.

Those who oppose birth control and abortion while demanding an end to welfare for poor children. Those who seek to criminalize children because their parents are illegal immigrants.  Those who want the benefits of society without paying taxes. CINOS all.

Whether you like  the pope or not,  this particular pope seems to embody the spirit of Christianity. Tolerance. Forgiveness. Responsibility. Responsibility for someone other than your own bank  account. No nastiness. No hostility toward anyone. And that is contrary to  modern American fundamentalist “Christians”.

So,  I propose a new term when labeling these phony “Christians”. Let’s call them CINOS. Christians In Name Only. Those who want the label and privileges of religion while ignoring the social  message. Wanting to be called “Christians” but  refusing to act like Christians.

So, this pope has been an inspiration, There are still Christians who accept the message of Christ. Christians who can follow their faith without being nasty and repulsive. The pope seems to be one of them.

As for the others? Let’s call them what  they are. “Christians in Name Only”.  CINOS.

Advertisements

4 Comments

Filed under Politics

Contestant #1: President Ted Cruz and Liberty

(This is the first in a series of articles about the contestants for the presidency in 2016. As they throw their hats (or toupees) in the ring I will be attempting to figure out what kind of president each would be. Keep in mind, of course, that many of these candidates are actually auditioning for jobs on Fox News and are not really serious about the presidency).

Ted Cruz announced that he is, by the grace of god, going to become president of the USA. And the key word in Cruz’s philosophy has been LIBERTY.

He wants liberty for himself. Liberty for those who follow his fundamentalist religious beliefs. It is all about freedom and god.

For starters, he made his announcement at Liberty University in Virginia. What could be more appropriate than to announce a Liberty campaign at a Liberty University? And the entire 10,000 member student body showed up to hear him. Well, actually they were forced to see him. You see, at Liberty University students are not free not to attend campaign speeches. Any student who failed to show up was going to be fined $10 and given official reprimands (demerits?) on their record. I guess you might say that where Liberty University is concerned “Freedom Isn’t Free” !

Cruz’s web site (www.tedcruz.org) has four major areas. First, he supports the US Constitution. That is certainly commendable. Second, he supports a strong America. So far he has my vote. He believes that life and families are good things. And finally he wants people to have jobs. With those ideas he should win by a landslide!

The devil, always, is in the details. So, based on his actions and the details of his website these are the kinds of things President Cruz would be in favor of.

1. Eliminate the ACA. And replace it with nothing at the federal level. While he opposes the ACA his only response to the chaos that would cause is to make all health care insurance the responsibility of the individual states. The bill he sponsors (you can find it on his Senate website) provides no guarantees for consumers. None. It is, in fact, nothing more than a repeal the ACA along with some vague idea of maybe giving people some vouchers. Under a Cruz presidency we go back to having massive numbers of uninsured. With no consumer protection.
2. Stop gay marriage rights. Cruz, the defender of liberty, would take away the freedom of a significant number of Americans to marry. Because it offends some people. He is very clear that only states have the right to decide who can marry. Based on his view of liberty a state could institute laws preventing blacks and whites from marrying. Or Jews from marrying non-Jews. It all depends on what the current state government decides. Liberty to take away liberty.
3. End the constitutional right to an abortion. A woman would no longer have the right, (guaranteed under the Constitution) to have a medical procedure if the state was opposed to it. Again, the king of liberty would take way the liberty of others. This man devoted to the Constitution would allow individual states to void decisions of the Supreme Court. President Cruz, not the SCOTUS, would decide what the Constitution says. Liberty.
4. Allow anyone to defy any law if that person had a “religious” objection to the law. Once again, while Cruz talks the talk of supporting the Constitution, he walks the walk of destroying the Constitution. Liberty.If I don’t like Jews I don’t have to serve them in my restaurant. If I don’t think homosexuals deserve to eat I can refuse to sell them food in my grocery store. Of course, the SCOTUS long ago established the Constitutional principle that if you are a commercial enterprise you must be open to all citizens. Not Ted. Not Mr Constitution.
5. Finally. What if President Cruz does not get his way? TANTRUM TIME! As a Senator he has abused his power to try to shut down the government because the rest of the Senate would not go along with is ideas. What would a President Cruz do? Would he simply abolish Congress? After all, he does have a pipeline (pun intended) to god.

A president Cruz, the defender of “liberty” would take away liberty from all except a fundamentalist few. He would throw folks off of health care, tell state governments that they can decide who can marry (marriage is not a federal right), tell pregnant women that big government will control their health care decisions, and allow people to use their personal beliefs to avoid following the law in any area they deemed “religious”.

Orwell would be smiling.

Or, as an American hero once said, “Give me liberty or give me Cruz.”

2 Comments

Filed under ACA, blacks, Christianity, Conservatives, Elections, gay rights, GOP, healthcare, homosexual, Neoconservative, neoconservatives, Politics, Religion, Republicans, Senate, tea party

Corporate Rights #3: The Hobby Lobby Fact Sidestep

A third aspect of the Hobby Lobby case bears mention. This is covered quite extensively in a March 21, 2014 article from Mother Jones (Are You there God? It’s Me, Hobby Lobby by Stephanie Mencimer). The article points out a couple of problems with the Green family claims. I call them Fact Sidesteps. (Picture a Vaudevillian with a cane shuffling off stage right)

Fact Sidestep 1. Hobby LObby claims as fact that it has longstanding, strong religious objections to covering IUDs and Plan B contraceptives. But, in fact,  Hobby Lobby HAD been covering these two contraceptives BEFORE the ACA was passed and implemented. The questions becomes: How sincere are the religious beliefs of this corporation/family? Did they have a new revelation from god AFTER the ACA was approved? Nice little shuffle.

Fact Sidestep 2: Hobby Lobby wants to deny covering these contraceptives as part of an overall health plan for their employees because they oppose these contraceptives. Yet, their own pension fund is INVESTED in these contraceptive manufacturers. Their argument could well be that since the pensions funds are part of a group, they had no choice but to invest in them as part of a group investment. So, they MAKE money off these companies (against their own religious beliefs) but refuse to SPEND money to cover these contraceptives. Interesting shuffle.

Fact Sidestep 3: Some commenters  (on Yahoo) have insisted that Hobby Lobby has no choice but to invest in these companies because they are part of a set groups of investments. Yet, at least since 1994 there have been specific funds for “anti-contraceptive” fundamentalist Christians to invest in. Evidently, the Greens did  not find those funds as profitable. Keep a shufflin’ right off stage.

All in all,  this corporate sidestep should be seen for what it is. Using a religious argument to attack the ACA…and save a few bucks . If “sincerely-held” beliefs require “actions”, the Green family/corporation fails the religious test. But, the Roberts court has not been one to let a little shuffling get in the way of the majority decisions.

2 Comments

Filed under Politics