First of all, I have to say this. It’s going to be a long, long time before I can watch another one of Olbermann’s special comments without repeatedly breaking into laughter. Ben Affleck and Miss Precious Perfect completely ruined it for me. Anytime Olbermann switches cameras, I lose it.

Okay, with that said, I’m kind of in the same boat as Olbermann here. I don’t really have a vested interest in this fight. I just happen to be stunned and slightly angered that the rights of any citizens in the United States of America would be subject to a popular vote. It’s one thing to vote on whether chicken cages should be bigger or whether we should use our tax dollars to build a high-speed train. It’s another thing to vote on taking away people’s legal rights– people who happen to be a small minority of the population. And if this really is the process we’re using, if we’re really going to put gay marriage up for popular vote every four years, does this mean gay couples have to hold their breath every election day to see if their marriage is still valid? How ridiculous is that?

To be honest, I’m not even 100% sure gay marriage is right or good for society or any of the other moral debates taking place right now in churches and communities across California. I’m neither a sociologist nor a theologian. I do know that denying people rights that everyone else has is un-American. It’s just not what this country is about. I also know that allowing religious groups to write their beliefs into the state constitution is a slippery, dangerous slope– even if the religion happens to be mine.

I’m actually not that interested in hearing what other religions have to say about my relationship with my wife. I also happen to be just as uninterested in what the majority of Californians think. I’m an American; it’s my God-given right to not have to care. And I’m sure gay couples are every bit as uninterested in what either my Bible or the Book of Mormon or a small majority of Californians have to say about their relationship with their partners– except for the fact that it’s all now written into our state constitution. But the fact is, gay Americans are every bit as American as I am; they should have the exact same right I do to not have to care.

California voters age 65 and older outnumbered African-Americans by 50% and contribued 39% more Yes on Prop 8 votes.  If voters age 65 and older had opposed Prop 8 by a slight majority of 52%, it would have failed.

So why isn’t Sullivan emphasizing the rampant homophobia in the elderly community?  Why is he singling out African-Americans as the foremost obstacle to gay rights when voters over 65 actually had 39% more influence in the passing of Prop 8?  Will Sullivan ever condemn nursing homes and Bingo tournaments the way he has repeatedly condemned black churches? …

[I]t is in no way clear that the color of one’s skin is a primary indicator of one’s social attitudes towards gays.  I’m guessing that your frequency of church attendance, your age, and where you live are all much stronger indicators than race.

Today, Nate Silver at 538– the Stephen Hawking of political math– finally weighed in with his take on the influence of black voters on Prop 8′s passage.  Reacting to the latest “Blame the blacks (and Latinos, too!)” article appearing in today’s Sacramento Bee– an article which (surprise, surprise) Andrew Sullivan immediately highlighted and praised– Silver pointed out a number of Prop 8 myths that have gone mostly unchallenged till now (all emphasis mine):

Certainly, the No on 8 folks might have done a better job of outreach to California’s black and Latino communities. But the notion that Prop 8 passed because of the Obama turnout surge is silly. Exit polls suggest that first-time voters — the vast majority of whom were driven to turn out by Obama (he won 83 percent [!] of their votes) — voted against Prop 8 by a 62-38 margin. More experienced voters voted for the measure 56-44, however, providing for its passage.

Now, it’s true that if new voters had voted against Prop 8 at the same rates that they voted for Obama, the measure probably would have failed. But that does not mean that the new voters were harmful on balance — they were helpful on balance. If California’s electorate had been the same as it was in 2004, Prop 8 would have passed by a wider margin.Furthermore, it would be premature to say that new Latino and black voters were responsible for Prop 8′s passage. Latinos aged 18-29 (not strictly the same as ‘new’ voters, but the closest available proxy) voted against Prop 8 by a 59-41 margin. These figures are not available for young black voters, but it would surprise me if their votes weren’t fairly close to the 50-50 mark.

Again– and this can’t be stressed enough– without the surge of new black and Latino voters, “Prop 8 would have passed by a wider margin.”  Silver then goes on to echo my point exactly about the stronger influence of older voters on the passage of Prop 8:

At the end of the day, Prop 8′s passage was more a generational matter than a racial one. If nobody over the age of 65 had voted, Prop 8 would have failed by a point or two.

My math contradicts his just a bit there.  I think voters over 65 would have had to oppose Prop 8 by a very slight majority (52%) to stop it, but I trust Nate Silver’s calculator more than mine.  He’s saying that older voters by themselves provided Prop 8′s winning margin, which is something you cannot say of any ethnic group– black, Latino, or otherwise.  Silver points out that, as older voters get cycled out of the electorate through death and replaced by 18-29-year-olds (of all races), support for marriage equality will naturally increase.

Again, my point is not to start scapegoating and demonizing older voters, as I’m sure that wasn’t the point Silver was making either.  The point is to debunk the myth that African-Americans are solely to blame for Prop 8, somehow moreso than the rest of the California electorate who also voted in favor of it.

It was like being at a klan rally except the klansmen were wearing Abercrombie polos and Birkenstocks. YOU NIGGER, one man shouted at men. If your people want to call me a FAGGOT, I will call you a nigger.  Someone else said same thing to me on the next block near the temple…me and my friend were walking, he is also gay but Korean, and a young WeHo clone said after last night the niggers better not come to West Hollywood if they knew what was BEST for them.

Another black student had this experience:

Three older men accosted my friend and shouted, “Black people did this, I hope you people are happy!” A young lesbian couple with mohawks and Obama buttons joined the shouting and said there were “very disappointed with black people” and “how could we” after the Obama victory.

In the last few days, influential gay blogger Andrew Sullivan has urged calm throughout the gay community, especially regarding the recent blaming and scapegoating of African-Americans.  Here’s Sullivan discussing the situation on Friday:

I totally understand the anger, hurt and pain now roiling the gay community and our families, especially in California. But it’s important to keep our heads. … Calm down. We are not experiencing a massive, permanent backlash. … [W]e need patience and relentlessness in explaining our lives. And how human they are. It’s not fair; we should have it all already. But we don’t. And in a democracy, that means persuasion, not fiat.

The next day, he addressed the anger even more specifically:

There is a difference between blaming African Americans and recognizing that the black community needs to be engaged more energetically on this issue.

Of course, Sullivan deserves credit for recognizing how out of control the blame-blacks-first crowd has gotten, and for speaking out against it.

However, over the past two months– well before the results of the vote were known– Sullivan frequently cited “black evangelicals” and “homophobic” African-Americans as the reason why Prop 8 could pass and the main obstacle to gay rights.

Here is Sullivan in late September discussing a study that said ”A majority of younger white evangelicals support some form of legal recognition for civil unions or marriage for same-sex couples” (all emphasis mine):

Black evangelicals are another matter. There is, alas, no ethnic community as homophobic in America as African-Americans. Which is why the ballot initiative in California could be close.

Here is Sullivan two days later defending that statement from the substantial criticism (and contradicting evidence) it received from fellow Atlantic blogger Ta-Nehisi Coates, United States of Jamerica blogger Jamelle, and The American Prospect blogger Adam Serwer, among others:

There is a tsunami of data showing that African-Americans are more opposed to gay equality than any other ethnic group. … The younger generation is not much better. Young Latinos are much less homophobic than young African-Americans. … The rampant homophobia in urban black culture also cannot be denied, as well as the role of the black church in fomenting and entrenching homophobia, even as so many black men and women have died of HIV and AIDS.

And finally, here is Sullivan, the day after the election, urging gays not to demonize the black community right before he viciously demonizes the black community:

[T]his community needs to be engaged not demonized, and we haven’t engaged enough. The black church is one of the most powerful forces fomenting homophobia in America, and has fostered attitudes that have literally killed countless gay black men. It’s time to Act Up against those elements that p.c. liberals have been too timid to confront.

So for those of you who are confused, here’s Sullivan’s argument in a nutshell: African-Americans are the single most homophobic group of people in America, they are the reason the Prop 8 vote was even close, and their attitudes on this subject have literally killed countless gays.  But, you know, we shouldn’t demonize or blame them.

Got that?

POST SCRIPT: One last point I’d like to make.  Let’s go back to that CNN exit poll that everyone is so fond of citing to “prove” the “overwhelming” influence of black homophobia on California’s Prop 8 vote.

First, it should be noted that Sullivan’s favorite polling analyst (and mine) Nate Silver at 538 wrote, on election day no less, ten reasons why everyone should ignore exit polls.  Reason number one is that exit polls have notoriously higher margins of error than regular polls, somewhere between 50% to 90% higher.  Reason number nine is that “a high-turnout election may make demographic weighting difficult.”  You mean, a high-turnout election like the record-breaking one we had Tuesday?  And you mean demographic weighting like how African-Americans– who make up a miniscule 6% of California’s population– voted?  Yeah.

But for the sake of argument, let’s pretend like that CNN exit poll is accurate and that blacks did in fact make up 10% of California’s electorate and did in fact vote in favor of Prop 8 at a rate of 70%.  According to the same poll, voters age 65 and older made up 15% of the electorate and voted in favor of Prop 8 at a rate of 61%.  For those of you who aren’t good at math, that means California voters age 65 and older outnumbered African-Americans by 50% and contribued 39% more Yes on Prop 8 votes.  If voters age 65 and older had opposed Prop 8 by a slight majority of 52%, it would have failed.

So why isn’t Sullivan emphasizing the rampant homophobia in the elderly community?  Why is he singling out African-Americans as the foremost obstacle to gay rights when voters over 65 actually had 39% more influence in the passing of Prop 8?  Will Sullivan ever condemn nursing homes and Bingo tournaments the way he has repeatedly condemned black churches?

We’re all waiting.

POST SCRIPT #2: Could Sullivan’s own personal negative experiences with African-Americans in inner-city D.C. be influencing his disproportional focus on this group?

POST SCRIPT #3: The point of this post is not to excuse black homophobia or the contribution of African-Americans to the passage of Prop 8.  It is definitely an issue that needs to be addressed, just like it needs be addressed among– again according to CNN’s exit poll– Latinos, Republicans (who made up 29% of the electorate and voted in favor of Prop 8 at a rate of 82%– which adds up to 339% more influence on passing Prop 8 than African-Americans), everyone over age 30, everyone who makes less… or more than $50,000, people who have attended college, people who have never attended college, women, and men.  Did I miss anyone?

The point of this post is to question the wildly disproportional scrutiny of African-Americans, when it is in no way clear that the color of one’s skin is a primary indicator of one’s social attitudes towards gays.  I’m guessing that your frequency of church attendance, your age, and where you live are all much stronger indicators than race.

A) Single out African-Americans as the sole reason why gay marriage was repealed, ignoring all other factors, including the Mormon Church who created and funded Prop 8 and the other non-black 90% of the electorate who also voted in favor of it.

B) Launch racist attacks that harken back to a time when blacks were viewed as naturally inferior to, or at least intellectually different than, other races, using words like “instinctive.”

C) Attack the Christian faith of African-Americans by invoking slavery.

Like I said, maybe it’s just me, but that actually seems like the stupidest, most counterproductive way anyone could possibly react to Tuesday’s result.  I understand a lot of people in the gay and liberal communities are angry right now, and rightfully so.  But to react by throwing verbal trash cans through the windows of black churches and communities is not the answer at all.

Earlier today, a Daily Kos contributor, who happens to be both black and gay, wrote a fascinating post on the reasons why people need to stop scapegoating the black community for Prop 8.  The two best reasons:

– It isn’t even clear that the exit polls people are using to ”prove” overwhelming black support of Prop 8 (and by proxy, black homophobia) are accurate.  African-Americans made up just 10% of California’s electorate on Tuesday– compared to 63% white, 18% Latino.  With CNN’s tiny sample size of only 224 African-Americans throughout the entire state, the figure showing 70% of African-Americans supporting Prop 8 could easily be off by a very large percentage, depending on where in California those selected African-Americans lived.  A swing of just 22 black voters in that statewide sample– easily possible if too much of your sample is coming from conservative inland communities– changes the support from 70% to 60%.

– Even if African-Americans had opposed Prop 8 at the same percentage as whites, it wouldn’t have made a difference.  There was just too much support for it from the rest of the non-black electorate.  For every one black voter who voted in favor of Prop 8, there were six white and Latino voters who did the same.  So why– other than racism and frustration– single out the black voter for blame?

If gays and liberals want to find someone to blame for the passage of Proposition 8, there are a few much better options: the Mormon Church, as I mentioned; San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome, whose arrogant pro-gay-marriage rants starred in several Yes on 8 commercials, and who blew open the issue of gay marriage being taught in schools by foolishly officiating a gay wedding in front of a class of first-graders; Barack Obama, who opposed Prop 8, but made (probably wisely for his campaign) no real effort to make that fact known to the 61% of Californians who voted for him.

And of course, there’s the gay and liberal communities themselves, who refused to put a human face on the issue or an actual gay couple in any of their ads.  In fact, most No on 8 ads didn’t even use the word “gay” or any variation of it.  It was as if Prop 8 was a civil rights issue, a separation of church and state issue, a marriage issue, but definitely not a “gay” or ”homosexual” issue.  But as long as gay marriage supporters continue operating in this mode of subconscious shame, I suspect gay marriage opponents will continue to feel vindicated in their belief that homosexuality is something to be ashamed of.

Lastly, the gay and liberal community needs to realize that the black community is operating at unprecedented levels of goodwill and open-mindedness right now.  A lot of African-Americans got their minds changed dramatically on Tuesday night about whites, racism, and their place in America.  So rather than using this time to attack that community, now is probably more like the perfect time to begin positive outreach and education efforts.  On the other hand, if these attacks continue, they will almost certainly lead to a knee-jerk defensiveness throughout a black community that is accustomed to being disproportionately and unfairly blamed for so many other issues– a wound that could take years to heal.  And the absolute last thing gay marriage supporters need to be doing right now is making more enemies.

We’ve already acknowledged as a society, through our discrimination laws, that sexual orientation is a protected status under the law.  For example, you can’t fire someone based on their sexual orientation.  Yet it is the only status that isn’t afforded marriage rights.  We don’t legally discriminate against anyone’s marriage rights based on race, gender, disability, age, or religion.  Two people of different religions or disabilities can’t be denied the right to marry.  So why do our marriage laws single out sexual orientation?  As Ta-Nehisi Coates at the Atlantic put it, “If someone wants to give me a reason why gay people shouldn’t be able to marry that doesn’t, at its root, boil down to ‘yuck,’ I guess I’d love to hear it.”

I guess I don’t understand these propositions in general though.  What’s the point of representative government if the people are voting on individual laws, voting to amend the constitution?  The night before the election, my wife and I stayed up studying, to give a final look at each proposition– the pros and the cons– before we voted.  And the hour or two we spent doing that, I guarantee you, is an hour or two more than 90% of Californians spent on it.  I’m guessing most people didn’t even realize there were propositions to vote on until they got to the booth.  So rather than our laws being passed by at least a halfway educated lawmaker who is at least accountable to someone, we get people walking into the booth and voting for “clean energy” bills without even understanding the economic cost or who those bills are really benefitting.

The other problem is when the arguments of supporters and opponents of a particular proposition basically amount to, “Nuh-uh, it won’t do that.” “Uh-huh, yes, it will.” “Nuh-uh, it totally won’t.” “That’s a complete lie, of course it will.” “No, you’re a liar.” “No, you are.”  Which is basically what the arguments for and against Prop 4– a rehab program for non-violent drug offenders– sounded like to me.  One side saying that it would provide a loophole for sex offenders and burglars to get out of jail free, another side saying it wouldn’t and that that was just a despicable scare tactic, with no way to independently verify which side was telling the truth.  And Prop 2, giving rights to farm animals at the cost of possibly driving farm business out of California.  How am I– Joe the Uninformed Layman– supposed to weigh something like that?

But back to the Prop 8 aftermath.  My other problem with all this is that somehow most of the blame for the passage of Prop 8 has fallen on the black community, a small slice of the population who voted overwhelmingly in favor of it (though the black population is so small in California that ultimately it probably wouldn’t have changed the final result, only the margin of victory).  In fact, Andrew Sullivan has pretty much spent the last two days blaming a homophobic black community for– ironically, it would seem– stripping away the rights of another oppressed minority group.  But lest we forget, it was the overwhelmingly white Mormon Church’s homophobia that conceived, executed, and funded Prop 8.  Without them, there is no Prop 8 to vote on.  So while there definitely needs to be some outreach by gays into the black community, they’d be better served through focusing on bottom-up reform and education in the religious community.  Though, good luck with that.

Regardless of how you feel about gays getting married, this is America, where we fundamentally believe that all men are created equal and deserve to be treated equally under the law. It’s one thing to ban something like polygamy, where everyone is legally limited to one spouse. It’s another thing to say, “You, you, and you can all marry the person you love. You, you, and you cannot.” That’s un-American.

In the last few weeks, the pastor of my church has spoken out pretty strongly in favor of the ban. His reasoning is that God intended marriage to be between a man and woman; that gays are only 2% of the population and we can’t let a small group determine marriage laws for the rest of us; that children will be taught gay marriage in schools; and that churches would lose their tax exempt status for refusing to perform gay marriages.

My response to that reasoning is this:

First, our Christian belief that God intended marriage to be between a man and woman is our own personal faith belief, and it shouldn’t be imposed on the entire population by force of law. We’re a nation of many cultures and faiths, and our laws need to respect that fact. Imagine how Christian churches would react if Islamic groups wanted to write some kind of legal discrimination into our state constitution based on what the Koran tells them about God’s design for marriage.

Second, if gays are only 2% of the population, then what’s the big deal about giving them equal rights as Americans to marry who they choose? Banning gay marriage isn’t going to stop them from being gay or adopting children, so isn’t it actually better for them to be in committed, monogamous relationships than not? And the institution of gay marriage does not determine marriage laws for the rest of us. It doesn’t in any way affect who I can marry, the legal definition of my marriage, or the sanctity of my relationship with my wife.

Third, I don’t remember ever being taught anything about marriage in school. But even if I was taught about gay marriage as a child, what’s the problem? Does that mean I’d have been somehow more likely to grow up gay? Does that mean when I hit 12 or 13, my body chemistry somehow wouldn’t have turned me crazy about every pretty girl I saw? I just don’t see what the issue is. I guess if you believe homosexuality is a choice– a notion that both science and common sense refutes– then you could have an argument here. But even if you do, the argument still doesn’t hold water. Our schools expose children to many issues that may be outside of our personal belief systems, issues that they have the choice to embrace or not. For example, should we stop teaching children about European history for fear that they suddenly turn into Nazis or Communists? Should we stop teaching them about the Jim Crow South for fear they suddenly embrace racism? This is not to equate gay marriage with any of those things, but just to expose the utter ridiculousness of that argument.

Lastly, I am sensitive to the issue of churches losing their tax exempt status for refusing to perform gay marriages. It’s the one argument that has a bit of sway with me. But then I remember that up until 1978– 14 years after the Civil Rights Act was passed– the Mormon Church did not allow blacks to serve certain duties as priests. It wasn’t until their tax exempt status was threatened that the policy was changed. The government didn’t threaten to close the Mormon Church down or prohibit Mormons from freely practicing their faith. The government merely said, if your church wants to continue discriminating against people contrary to the laws of the United States of America, you are free to do so, but you will no longer enjoy the privileges of tax exempt status. I believe that’s fair. If the people of California use the democratic process to extend marriage rights to gays, then churches operating within the jurisdiction of the state of California should honor the law, just like they honor all other laws.

(By the way, is it a coincidence that the Mormon Church– based in Utah– is the largest contributor to California’s gay marriage ban initiative, contributing as much as 77% of the total funds donated to the campaign? That’s $8 million to $17 million of church resources that, in my opinion, could have been much better spent.)

So just like you can be a Christian and vote for Obama, you can also be a Christian and vote against a constitutional ban on gay marriage. Regardless of how you feel about gays, fighting discrimination against them or any other group of Americans is the right thing to do.

UPDATE: Here’s the short version of this post. Proposition 8 is not a referendum on whether you believe homosexuality is right or wrong, good or bad for society. It’s a referendum on whether you believe discrimination against American citizens should be written into the California state constitution for any reason.

As for my concern– and that of my pastor– that the defeat of Prop 8 could lead to churches losing their tax exempt status, that turns out not to be true. According to an amazing op-ed by the LA Times (read the whole thing), it’s just another scare tactic:

Another “Yes on 8″ canard is that the continuation of same-sex marriage will force churches and other religious groups to perform such marriages or face losing their tax-exempt status. Proponents point to a case in New Jersey, where a Methodist-based nonprofit owned seaside land that included a boardwalk pavilion. It obtained an exemption from state property tax for the land on the grounds that it was open for public use and access. Events such as weddings — of any religion — could be held in the pavilion by reservation. But when a lesbian couple sought to book the pavilion for a commitment ceremony, the nonprofit balked, saying this went against its religious beliefs.

The court ruled against the nonprofit, not because gay rights trump religious rights but because public land has to be open to everyone or it’s not public. The ruling does not affect churches’ religious tax exemptions or their freedom to marry whom they please on their private property, just as Catholic priests do not have to perform marriages for divorced people and Orthodox synagogues can refuse to provide space for the weddings of interfaith couples. And Proposition 8 has no bearing on the issue; note that the New Jersey case wasn’t about a wedding ceremony.

And commenter Randplaty wrote a long rebuttal to this post that is well worth reading in its entirety, ending his/her argument with:

In the end, that’s what it comes down to. You either believe gay marriage is a good thing or you believe it’s a bad thing.

But again, Proposition 8 is not a referendum on how you feel about gay marriage, although I suspect a lot of people will– and are entitled to– vote that way. It’s about whether one religious group’s beliefs should be imposed on everyone else. Would Christians stand by happily while Scientologists wrote their definition of marriage into California’s constitution? No. So why should everyone else defer to our beliefs?

One final word. There’s a guy at my work who, earlier this year, got married to his male partner of several years. He’s a great guy, and everyone in the office is supportive of him. Tomorrow, I get to vote on his marriage. He will never get to vote on mine. Is that fair? Is that America?

So says Janet Porter of the Christian right website World Net Daily in one of the most profoundly ridiculous articles I’ve ever read, titled “You cannot be a Christian and vote for Obama“:

To all those who name the name of Christ who plan to willfully disobey Him by voting for Obama, take warning. Not only is our nation in grave danger, according to the Word of God, so are you. … In one week, America will make a choice. And to those who call themselves “Christian” who are planning on voting for Barack Obama, put down the Obama talking points and read God’s voter guide before you go to the polls.

Porter goes on to quote a bunch of Bible passages out of context to make the case against Obama’s policies on gay rights and abortion before slipping directly into McCain-Palin talking points, complete with Joe the Plumber reference:

Obama will use your tax dollars to kill innocent children, and then he’ll take your paycheck and use it to “spread the wealth around.” Don’t believe me? Don’t believe Joe the plumber? Hear Barack Obama for yourself in an 2001 interview about his goal to try what the Soviets proved does not work.

At which point, Porter links to Obama’s 2001 radio interview on Civil Rights and “redistributive change” that the Drudge Report tried and failed to turn into a national scandal.  Unfortunately, it never seems to occur to her that one of the biggest advocates in history of spreading the wealth around was, um– wait for it– Jesus Christ.  Imagine if Obama had told Joe the Plumber to “Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor,” as Jesus instructed the rich man in Mark 10:17-22.  I think a few Republican heads would have exploded.

But back to the choice in this election. Just in case Porter isn’t making herself perfectly clear:

[T]he warning goes far beyond that. To those who think that God’s grace gives them license to willfully disobey Him without consequences – think again:

Not everyone who says to Me, “Lord, Lord,” shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, “Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?” And then I will declare to them, “I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!” (Matthew 7:21-23)

That deals with your eternity.

Got that?  Switch your party affiliation now because, as the Bible clearly tells us in First Joe 3:16, registered Democrats will be denied entry into the kingdom of heaven.  But the irony that Porter is missing is that right-wing ideology has become so narrow that Jesus would probably be denied entry into the Republican Party.

Jesus never spoke a single word about either gays or abortion, two issues which have become pass/fail litmus tests for Republicans.  And over half of everything Jesus said dealt with the issues of money and wealth– mainly how to spread it around to care for the poor and each other.  Republicans would likely characterize the endless baskets of fish and loaves Jesus gave to “the lame, the blind, the crippled, the mute”and 4,000 other able-bodied people in Matthew 15:29-38 as welfare, a handout.  After all, no one in the crowd worked for it.

Jesus also turned out to be a pretty strict free market regulator the day he entered the temple and drove out the salesmen and money changers in Matthew 21:12-13.  Almost certainly, the modern-day Republican Party would brand Jesus a socialist, if not a Marxist Communist Muslim.

You could go on and on with this stuff, but my point is not whether Jesus would be a Democrat or a Republican– I don’t know if he’d even be all that interested in being an American.  My point is how utterly hypocritical and presumptuous it is for Janet Porter and the rest of religious right to believe that is God on their side, and how ridiculous it is for them to go further and claim that God will send good Christian men and women on the other side to hell.  In fact, I pretty much have a problem with anybody who goes around pointing out who they think is going to hell and who isn’t, as if the decision is in any way up to them.

So to Janet Porter or anyone else who believes that you cannot be a Christian and vote for Obama, I have three words for you:

Yes.  We.  Can.

You can’t make this up.  The 700 Club reports:

In early August in her prayer time Cindy [Jacobs] heard the Lord say, “There will be no more business as usual.”

Little did she know the scope of what this meant on a worldwide scale. God is on the move. She and many others have taken this as a major point of intercession. She believes that just as there came a time when God judged the gods of Egypt, He is now judging the god of mammon. Nations are standing on the cusp of history that will determine their course for generations to come. God is judging the ideologies of nations. He is moving to put the fear of the Lord not only on His church; but upon the nations of the world.

For these and other reasons Cindy is calling for a Day of Prayer for the World’s Economies on Wednesday, October 29, 2008. They are calling for prayer for the stock markets, banks, and financial institutions of the world on the date the stock market crashed in 1929. They are meeting at the New York Stock Exchange, the Federal Reserve Bank, and its 12 principal branches around the US that day.

“We are going to intercede at the site of the statue of the bull on Wall Street to ask God to begin a shift from the bull and bear markets to what we feel will be the ‘Lion’s Market,’ or God’s control over the economic systems,” she said. “While we do not have the full revelation of all this will entail, we do know that without intercession, economies will crumble.”

Now, granted, they’re not actually praying to the golden calf.  They’re just praying around it, laying hands on it, and providing mankind a visual of such staggering irony that I suspect even Jesus would get a kick out of it.  As for the “intercession” they’re praying for, it’s called market regulation.  Which is something I’m guessing they’ve been voting and probably praying against for the last eight years.

My point here is not to mock other people’s faith.  I’m a Christian myself.  My point is to say “faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.”  Don’t pray for peace and then walk down the street punching people in the face.  Don’t pray for economic prosperity and then vote to give all our money to the wealthy and strip the poor of all financial safeguards.  When you do that, you end up appearing in pictures like the one above with no idea how you got there.