How "Pro-Family" Means Something Intolerant and Militaristic to a Mainstream, Christian Organization
The Christian Coalition of America (CCA) to Punkerslut...
Do you have a Facebook account? If you do, I want to encourage you to click here and connect with our page today.
There are millions of pro-family Americans who are not connected with our political system, but they are more likely to get involved if they receive information from their friends.
Currently, half of all Americans with an email address also have a Facebook account -- and that makes them an incredible potential asset to our cause.
Whether it is critical action alerts, or voter guides for next year's Presidential election, social media sites like Facebook help us leverage our support and spread the word to others much more rapidly.
So please take a moment and connect with us by visiting our page and clicking the 'Like' button today. Then help us spread the word by sharing a link to our page with your friends.
The more people we reach, the more effective we become!
Roberta Combs, President
PS. Please forward this email on to others!
Punkerslut to the Christian Coalition of America (CCA)...
I recently received an e-mail from your organization, telling me that there are "millions of pro-family Americans who are not connected with our political system." And, the best way to help people become active, apparently, is through Facebook, or "Currently, half of all Americans with an email address also have a Facebook account – and that makes them an incredible potential asset to our cause." The e-mail essentially is a chain-letter advertisement: "Here's the Christian Coalition's message, now pass it along to someone else." The article is signed "Sincerely, Roberta Combs," but I don't think it's possible for mass mailings to be sincere at all, since you sent the exact same message probably to millions of others.
Nothing in the e-mail mentioned anything about your political agenda. However, by perusing your website, I was able to get some kind of idea. For instance, there's this: "We support the nomination and confirmation of judges who will uphold and apply the Constitution as it was originally written." As it was originally written? Have you read it? Article V of the US Constitution allows all future lawmakers to amend and change the Constitution as they think is fit. So, if we actually "followed" the original constitution, we would continue to change it, since it provides the methods and terms by which such evolution can occur.
You have two actual choices there. "Support the original constitution as it was written" -- which means changing it, as the document states about itself. (If you read it.) Or, oppose the original constitution, which means keeping it exactly as it as throughout all time and all dimensions, and refusing to change it as necessary to fit the people who are governed by it. Or, as Thomas Paine wrote, "as government is for the living, and not for the dead, it is the living only that has any right in it," from "The Rights of Man." And since Thomas Paine and all of the other founding fathers are dead, it is only within our hands that we can find the right to decide how we shall live today. But, again, I suspect you have not read the material that you claim to support, since that material specifically tells everyone to oppose your ideas.
Then look at some of your other positions. You also want to support the "Defense of Marriage Act," so as to prohibit equal treatment by the government of gay individuals. Doesn't the fourth Amendment guarantee the right to civilians "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures"? How does the government have the right to search, or even inquire, into the personal habits of any of its citizens? The US Constitution provides no area for allowing Congress to regulate marriage. The only words you can find about marriage are the prohibition of government from even searching for an answer to the gender status of those entering marriage. In one instance, you want to stop people from changing the constitution, and in the next, you want to abolish the bill of rights that protects us against unnecessary government intrusion into our private lives.
In another instance, you are opposed to the "Fairness Doctrine," which would require equal broadcasting of different opinions in media outlets. And, a few paragraphs later, without any sense of contradiction, you support laws that require television to broadcast religious programming, in support of the "Multicast/Equal Access" law. The government suggests offering equal time for differing opinions -- this is good, as long as the opinions are yours, and it is bad, as long as the opinions are those of your political opponents.
Again, I suspect you have not read the US Constitution. The very first amendment prohibits any law that is "respecting an establishment of religion." How can you support the US Constitution, which demands that government stay out of religion, and then two seconds later, you support the literal abolishment of this amendment? Elsewhere, you're demanding that Christian prayer is required for all soldiers of the United States military. You don't state it like this. Why call it a requirement? Let's call it a "liberty." Or, as you say, you want a law "allowing military chaplains to pray in the name of Jesus and according to their faith requirements."
Here's how politics works. When a governor, or an officer, or anyone with any command in government is "allowed" to do something, it is an authority, not a liberty. The CIA, the FBI, and the NSA are allowed to bomb underdeveloped countries, or even American cities (Philadelphia, 1985). But, only someone untrained in politics would believe that "we gave liberties to those organizations to behave in this way." A liberty given to one individual, which takes away from the liberties of everyone else, is not a liberty at all -- it is a power, an authority, a law. So, when you want to give officers and those in charge of the military the right to force everyone in their units to pray to Jesus Christ -- you're not making a liberty, you're making an authority. Not only that, but it's an authority that is quite expressly prohibit in the very first of the US Constitution's Bill of Rights.
You also support tax cuts by George Bush, claiming that "virtually every family" was benefited by them. Actually, after losing 2.7 million jobs over four years, his tax cut package provided $137 billion only for businesses. (MSNBC.com) "American families," to use such an abstract term, only received any of this money, if one of the family members happened to own a business. That means you're looking at probably 5-10% of the population, at most, yet you go so far as to say that this means "virtually every family in America." Even small business-owners today are demanding the repeal of the law, because it exorbitantly favors the extra-wealthy. (HuffingtonPost.com)
Your other points hardly mix in with anything else you claim that you're defending. Your first point is to "repeal ObamaCare" and to "work to defund each part of ObamaCare." A few paragraphs later, you claim that we need to develop national energy supplies, to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. By doing so, you think you will "ensure our national security, strengthen our economy and protect our environment." And, of course, you want to help the poor accomplish this task, because "we have a scriptural obligation to care for what Matthew 25:40 refers to as 'the least of these'." When it comes to caring for the least of these, you're ready to proclaim that drilling in Alaska and strip-mining in America's Mid-West is the best tactic. But, when it comes to providing government healthcare, that verse of the Bible is strangely dropped. Did I say strangely? I meant to write "conveniently."
Your understanding of the Healthcare Act of the United States is also appalling. For instance, you cite the cost of this bill as being the size of "1/6th of the American economy." Actually, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the bill will cost $230 billion over the next ten years. (FactCheck.org) The 2012 budget of US Congress, however, allocates $1,400 billion in a single year to military spending, with "secret funding to clandestine military operations." (You can't pass a "Support Fascist Dictators in Underdeveloped Countries" law publicly, so it was passed secretly, and this has been admitted by the US Government -- WhiteHouse.gov.)
So, let's do some simple math. Let's say that the $20 billion spent in a single year on the Healthcare Act actually DOES represent one-sixth of the US Economy. What does that mean about military spending? It means that we spend almost twelve times as much as money as is in existence on the military in a single year. How can we spend 1200% of all of the money in the US economy on military? Oh, wait, that's right, you can't. A little thing called "mathematically-impossible." Actually, with a GDP somewhere around $14.7 trillion in 2010, the US Military's $1.4 trillion accounts for almost 1/10th of the entire economy -- if you really wanted to get rid of our tax burdens, you'd fight for the repeal of all US Military Spending.
Finally, you're opposed to the Stem Cell Research that would have make Ronald Reagan a coherent, sane man, as his family has been publicly demanding more stem cell research for the past decade. You show a picture of an unborn child next to it, very close to the point of birth. Of course, if that child were born just after that photo were taken, and its parents could not afford the hospital bill, you would demand that they're thrown out because any type of public healthcare, apparently, is a threat to "family values."
Everywhere, you seem to have one point in particular: to advance an ultra-right-wing Christian agenda, while calling it everything that is necessary to make people believe in it. You "care for the least of these" when it comes to creating jobs by ripping apart the environment, but you are "fiscally-responsible" when it comes to abolishing healthcare for the poor. You support the US Constitution when it comes to empowering Authoritarian governors, but you oppose it when it demands that government shall not recognize any religion. In one phrase, you believe in everything and nothing, so long as it is in your favor when talking about it.
So, how should you want Americans to interpret Christianity, from your actions? Simply put, I would call it dishonest and opportunistic, or perfectly hollow and empty. Everything you support, in some way, contradicts everything else you support. Equality of religious affiliation in the military, for instance, is called "Religious Discrimination Against Christians in the Military." That's like saying that equality for all races is "Discrimination Against Whites." The only person who could advocate such a view is probably someone who is intolerant and bigoted against those who are granted equal consideration. According to your site, "The Air Force and Navy had surrendered to atheist activists and left-wing Members of Congress..." Actually, it is more like they complied with the first amendment of the US Constitution to separate Church and State.
You obviously spent time and money collecting e-mail addresses from every website in the world. It would only take a few seconds to review my criticisms, be honest, and tell me exactly where I am wrong in understanding your point of view. After all, there is a Freedom of Speech clause in that first amendment. Why would people fight so hard for this freedom, only so that big interest groups can use it to mislead and lie to the people? If you have any understanding of it, you'll have to let me know why everything you want contradicts everything else you want -- unless you're an advocate for a society that is run by the Church.
Thanks, and I'll be patiently awaiting your response.