Part 2 – THE CONGRESSIONAL PAGE – A PARODY

(Jonathon, the writer, is a congressional page from Central Florida.)

In a few days we found out. Stadler invited us nine male pages (conspicuously excluding the female) to a reception in an adjacent Watergate complex to his condo for supposedly to meet some defense contractors, a few pharmaceutical CEOs and their friends. Mark's wife had flown down to Lakeland for the weekend, so it looked sort of fishy. Congressman Duke Cunningham was there, along with Jack Abramoff, Tom DeLay and a whole bunch of guys from Carlyle, Enron, Halliburton, Bechtel, United Defense and Rand Corporation. Plus over a dozen guys from "K" Street where most of the lobbyists hung out when they weren't on Capitol Hill writing legislation under the table for reps and senators.

Well, it was one helluva party. The congressmen gambled and corporate heads with their politician puppets arranged for the players to "win." Big time. As in tens of thousands each on that one night alone. Yeah, the tables were rigged to make the politicians win so corporate "donations" couldn't be construed as bribery or illegal campaign financing. There's more ways than one to skin a cat, whether under the table or changing the law to fit the crime. It only takes money. Lots of it. That's how sick the system works.

Of course, now corporations can give unlimited cash under the table, thanks to the Bush Supremes that ruled in favor of phony front Citizens United. But back then there were a few rules to get around.

But this was over ten years ago – back when Mark Foley was instant messaging graphic sex to underage pages and Ted Haggard was being serviced by male escorts in Denver – all the while masquerading as born-again Christians deeply devoted to anti-gay-family-values. Pat Robertson’s political boy, Ralph Reed, was also part of the scene playing the role as Abramoff’s lapdog. However, the era may be more accurately depicted as chronic corruption related to ill-gotten gain – as the bigger picture quintessentially involves money and power, two words inseparable in the political arena.

Congressmen took in thousands in bribe money. Then the defense contractors had another surprise in store. From a back door several luscious prostitutes strode into the room. Yeah, practically naked! I couldn't believe my eyes. Congressmen and senators were allowed to choose from among the "selections." Then it was suggested they pay escorts with poker money they'd just "earned." Mind you, these were "Christian right-wing conservative" politicians sitting around the room, not the "immoral" left.

But the most startling discovery among the lineup of prostitutes was that a quarter of them were guys! Yeah, nearly nude dudes! I could only imagine what the reaction would be in congressmen's home districts should voters find out. Or if someone had a hidden camera somewhere and released videos to the media. Or the FBI. Or on the net (YouTube as yet didn’t exist).

From congressmen's choices, we could visibly detect their preferences. Talk about "open government"! Most of the men chose females; but over a quarter chose males; and two chose a combination of both. Incredible. And shamelessly they were picking hookers right in front of us. It was a glorified meat-market.

I noticed one senator, the junior from Pennsylvania, chose a male escort. He was infamous, we were informed, for picking up high-priced male hookers in Manhattan while on "business." He was the most radical anti-abortion, anti-gay guy in the room – a super-“Christian” with seven kids back home, sort of Josef Goebbels type. But a total hypocrite.

The next shock was when our own Congressman Stadler chose a "male escort" for the night. (As if we should be surprised?) He wore a tight military outfit that accented his brawny physique – had Jeff Gannon similarities. It might be said he was dressed "formally" in keeping with the "congressional" atmosphere.

As Mark Stadler clasped hands with the escort, he approached us at the other end of the room asking, "You fellows want to hang out with us at my place? I've got plenty of beer and videos. Please, join us."

It was more like a command than an invitation. We sensed another mandatory directive where we were obligated to comply. Or else.

In a way we were petrified at what we had just witnessed. Think of the open-ended obligation we carried. But we weren't surprised in the least. All nine pages happened to be gay; Stadler knew it before our arrival in DC. His application process was a ruse where the congressman wormed around the national selection regimen by investigating our sex lives more in-depth than our high school transcripts and/or any other facet of our backgrounds, including items essential for security clearance.

Stadler handed the escort a coat for the trip to his condo. It was just a brief walk, but Bob and Elizabeth Dole lived two doors down and would have suffered cardiac arrests had they seen an obvious male hooker out the window accompanying a well-known Republican congressman and his under-age page staff.

We arrived at Stadler's lavish condo to find the TV on playing gay-porn. "You boys relax and get comfortable while I go change. No reason you can't get out of those damned formal clothes," Stadler cunningly suggested.

The party can only be described as more pornographic than the video on screen. Nine teenage boys (twinks) at a congressman’s residence with a gay hooker. What would Mom do if she saw me now?" Imagine the disbelief in that dear old' church-lady's eyes. Probably die of heart attack. But imagine the congressman’s district discovering this.

Long after, I suffered a form of post-traumatic stress. The "party" was indescribable and can only be classified as hyper-scandalous – so unbelievable, the media would have been reluctant to expose even if corroborated.

The next Monday, the House was in session and Congressman Stadler took the floor to announce a proposal to amend a spending bill to include an unrelated provision restricting hate-crimes legislation aimed at gays. In other words, he wanted to exclude gays from hate-crime laws. What an absolute asshole!

Of course, it was for the audience back home, not what he truly believed. Everything revolved around photo-ops, nothing was based on conviction or the basic good of the people. Politicians in Congressman Stadler's circle claimed to be people of principle, of high moral fiber originating from the Bible – unlike the opposing party which they ridiculed day and night. Yet, the very ones pointing fingers were the ones most guilty of such behavior they supposedly despised – focusing on proposed legislation most pleasing to the base. "Men of character" they were called. Yeah, right. If only their supporters could see them in action at the Watergate. Nixon’s encounter with the scandalous icon didn’t hold a candle.

It wasn't until 2012 when the truth finally came out about the Watergate parties. They called the scandal "Pokergate" with a double meaning – for the bogus poker games and congressmen's "poker" of prostitutes. Congressman Stadler was implicated along with several more senators, representatives and top government officials – all the way up to the RNC Headquarters. In the end, Stadler got off the hook because someone in the White House pulled strings with the prosecutor from the Justice Department. Yeah, the chickenshit Dems covered for the chickenshit Republicans. Only those on the president's worst shit-list ever faced prosecution.

Years later after landing a job in Vegas, I met my former congressman while he was on another business trip. After serving three terms, Mark was hired as a lobbyist for Citrus Mutual and was of course hitting his successor up to write legislation beneficial to his client. But now his annual income ranged in 7-figures vs. 6.

I had heard through the grapevine that Stadler's wife had discovered him in bed with a guy at their Lakeland residence. Joann was supposed to be visiting her parents down in Bartow but arrived home two hours earlier than expected.

Mark persuaded her to keep it under wraps so he could complete his term and retire to a more lucrative job – lobbyist. To save-face and maintain financial security, she consented to this delicate arrangement.

How do I know all this? I was well-acquainted with the guy Rep. Stadler was porking that night. Dan was a friend of mine who was the lead-singer in a well-known gospel group; so, he had to keep his gay life secret as much as Stadler. They both attended a fundamentalist mega-church in Lakeland, and if this ever got out, they'd both be toast. Albeit Holy Toast.

Anyhow, when I met Stadler that night in Vegas, he had no clue I knew his secret. But for all he knew, I would never violate my non-disclosure agreement. Because if I did, the party was known to hire hitmen. Or arrange "small plane crashes." I remained silent.

Like the GOP class of ’94 that came in like a tsunami, the new class of 2010 were packed with young congressmen anxious to change things in Washington. Except they were of the same mold and held lots of secrets – like congressional page scandals yet to be uncovered. The beat goes on.

Can Religion Make You Fat? No, But It Might Make You Judgmental, Irrational, Mean, Prejudiced and Credulous

I have had several requests to assess from a REAL wellness perspective a recent study suggesting that religion might be a risk factor for obesity. How valuable is a finding that something "might be" this or that? I can identify unlimited things that “might be” do this or that, and I wouldn’t have to kill a single laboratory mouse to list all kinds of such possibilities. However, because the subject is religion, the latest "maybe yes, maybe no" study finding got a lot of what I think is unwarranted attention.

Many writers have expressed disdain for religion – among a few of my favorites are Robert Green Ingersoll, H.L. Mencken, Friedrich Nietzsche, Madeline Murray O'Hair, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens. However, not many religious skeptics have done so from a limited health and wellness perspective. This, I like to imagine, is my specialty! Therefore, I’m pleased to offer a REAL wellness perspective on the question, "Can religion make you fat?"

However, before providing this perspective, let me summarize the study that looked at the link between religion and obesity, conducted at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine. The research involved tracking 2,400 men and women over a period of 18 years. (Details on the religion and fat study are available in an article entitled, "Can Religion Make You Fat?" in "The Week," March 25, 2011.) http://theweek.com/article/index/213602/can-religion-make-you-fat study in question. Highlights include the following:

* The faithful seem to equate gluttony as being next to godliness. Praise the lard and pass the ice cream. Potluck gatherings and post-worship coffee and donut gatherings seem not to be helpful to the "bottom" line.

* Church attendance is a sedentary way to spend a good part of Sunday morning - bike rides, runs or walks on nature trails would be more physically and possibly more "spiritually" uplifting.

* Young churchgoers are 50 percent more likely to become obese by middle age than those who reject religion.

Why are churchgoers more likely to be fatter than the average infidel, like me? The authors offer a rather lame explanation, almost preposterous in nature and hard to take seriously. Yet, here it is: "Being religious is associated with doing good works and those who do good works reward themselves by overeating."

Can you believe that? It's almost as entertaining as Newt Gingrich’s explaining marital infidelities as caused by his overwork in turn driven by his intense patriotism!

Wait - hold your hat: It gets even more ridiculous. "It's because of marriage," explained another scholar associated with the study. Kenneth F. Ferraro of Purdue University told CNN: "Weight gain is common after marriage."

That's odd. Don't infidels also marry? Why are heretics not fat in middle age? Surely some are, but the headline about the study did not read, "Can religious skepticism keep you trim?"

Not surprisingly, there is NO evidence that religion CAUSES weight gain. Alas, one has to read below the sensationalized headlines before this fact is finally acknowledged. 

So, to end the incredible suspense, my answer to the question, "Can religion make you fat" is "no more than any other sedentary activity based on blind faith in ludicrous superstitions." The dogma won't make you fat - it will only reinforce whatever tendencies you already have toward being judgmental, irrational, mean, prejudiced and credulous.

Donald B. Ardell is the Well Infidel. He favors evidence over faith, reason over revelation and meaning and purpose over spirituality. His enthusiasm for reason, exuberance and liberty are reflected in his books (14), newsletter (570 editions of a weekly report) and lectures across North America and a dozen other countries. Write Don at awr.realwellness@gmail.com

A CERTAIN WORD - “DEMOCRACY”. But what’s it all about?

Any discussion of democracy is likely sooner or later to recall Churchill’s famous dictum to the effect that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the other forms that have been tried from time to time. It is one of those seductive aphorisms that are thought to clothe a profound truth in a pithy witticism. Churchill, like his literary kindred spirits, Shaw and Wilde, was a past master in the delivery of such witticisms. And, to be sure, this one has a prima facie ring of truth about it. But the timing of his remark is of some interest. It dates from November 1947. He had been out of office for over two years, after losing the post-war general election of July 1945 to a Labour landslide. His heroic status as Britain’s war leader had led many, including his closest allies in the United States, to believe that he would triumph at the polls. He thought so himself. So, his comments on the merits of democracy may have been in part a sad but resigned reflection on his own fate at the hands of a seemingly ungrateful electorate. Then again, by the end of 1947 the international political landscape had changed dramatically since the end of the war. The cold war had started, fuelled to an extent by Churchill’s speech at Fulton Missouri in March 1946, in which he claimed that from Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an ‘iron curtain’ had descended across the continent of Europe. All those countries to the east of that line falling within the Soviet sphere, were, he said, part of the undemocratic bloc of communist totalitarianism. According to the cold war rhetoric that was then becoming commonplace, Soviet totalitarianism was simply a different variant of the Nazi totalitarianism that had just been defeated. So his ‘least worst’ claims about democracy must also be seen as a defense of the representative democratic systems in Britain, western Europe and the United States as opposed to communist dictatorship.

Few would now seriously argue that the Stalinist regimes that emerged in Eastern Europe after the second world war, were, despite their designation as ‘people’s democracies’, in any meaningful sense democratic. But the liberal subsumption of Nazism and Communism under the generic ‘totalitarianism’, fails adequately to address the profound differences between them. Churchill certainly had ‘totalitarianism’ in mind when extolling the merits of democracy as preferable to any other political system. Liberal political theorists take for granted that ‘democracy’ in the modern world means nothing other than representative parliamentary democracy of the type that has evolved in most western countries during the past two centuries. The idea that there could possibly be democratic alternatives to the liberal democratic model is discounted as idealistic, romantic nonsense. The Stalinist regimes and certain Third World dictatorships that claim to be democratic are cited as negative examples, demonstrating the invalidity of any model of democracy other than the western liberal parliamentary version. In rather the same way as the failure of the Soviet and East European communist economic system has been used to reinforce the claim that there can be no alternative to the neo-liberal economic system that has triumphed in the west, so it is claimed that western-style liberal democracy is the only desirable alternative to the single-party bureaucratic dictatorships that ruled those states. It is taken for granted that more or less everyone accepts this proposition. This assumes that everyone is in agreement about what is meant by democracy and also, that everyone agrees that the system we have at present is democratic. This is a rash and unwarranted assumption.

The reality in Britain (and very likely in most other democratic countries) is that there is widespread and growing cynicism about professional politicians and the political system. A venal and prostituted ‘popular’ press systematically panders to the lowest common denominator of supposed ‘public interest’. A current case in point is the forthcoming referendum on reform of the voting system. It is no exaggeration to say that the level of public interest and information about the proposed ‘Alternative Vote’ option, even amongst otherwise well informed people, is abysmally low. Although its adoption would produce a more genuinely representative electoral outcome than the existing ‘first past the post’ system, it will probably be defeated on what looks likely to be a very low turn-out. The two main parties (Conservatives and Labour) have always favoured the old system against any version of proportional representation, and most of the press adopts the same stance.

But quite apart from reform of the electoral system, the level of public knowledge and debate about democracy is still superficial. Widespread public cynicism about the political system and professional politicians has not yet led to probing questions about the nature and limitations of representative democracy. The financial crisis of 2008 and the bail-out of the banks at the expense of the taxpayers have caused real anger on a scale not seen for decades. The onslaught on the welfare state in the name of ‘deficit reduction’ has produced the first serious signs of opposition. At the end of March 500.000 marched in London under the banner of the TUC and the public sector unions. New grass-roots organizations such as UK Uncut have staged audacious public demonstrations on the premises of businesses and banks guilty of tax avoidance. Anarchist groups, demonized by the popular press, have physically attacked the bastions of corporate power and conspicuous wealth. Things are stirring and as the impact of the onslaught on the living standards of the majority of people becomes clearer opposition will certainly grow. The prospect of this growing public resistance which will increasingly involve direct action, raises crucial questions about the nature of democracy. Those in power will hope that extra-parliamentary action will be limited to the odd peaceful demonstration that can be easily contained. But it is precisely extra-parliamentary opposition that needs to grow and become ever more effective. And this must eventually encompass large-scale strike action.

Those who have advocated parliamentary representative democracy as the highest form of democratic expression necessarily regard all extra-parliamentary action as less legitimate. But the current popular uprisings in the Arab world have brought to the forefront of public debate the question of ‘people power’. The literal translation of the word ‘democracy’ from the Greek is ‘rule of the people’ (demos: people; rule: kratia), and this recalls the concluding words of Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address in which he referred to ‘government of the people, by the people for the people’. Of course, while lip service has been paid to the notion of democracy as government, or rule, by the people, in reality it is taken for granted that even under the most democratic voting systems, ‘the electorate’ will participate in the process by voting every four or five years to send a representative to the legislature. That will be the limit of their involvement. The belief that, through a majoritarian electoral system, the people will be able to exercise full political and economic power, enabling them to enact policies that would, for example, bring about a radical redistribution of wealth and take the commanding heights of the economy into public ownership, is completely illusory.

Real power in Britain does not rest with parliament. No-one voted for Rupert Murdoch and News Corporation, but he is set to take control of the majority of the British news media. No-one voted to allow the accumulation of unregulated power and wealth in the hands of irresponsible investment bankers and, when they brought the whole financial system to the brink of disaster, no-one voted to bail them out at the expense of the taxpayer. No-one voted for the dismantling of the National Health Service and the decimation of the welfare state. Yet all these measures are being undertaken by a government that had no mandate for them, led by a political party which, without the support of their Liberal Democrat partners who betrayed their election pledges, would have no parliamentary majority. The manipulation of the parliamentary system in the interests of a power elite, hell-bent on solving the economic crisis into which their system has fallen by shifting the burden onto the shoulders of the majority of the working population and the poorest sections of society, has never been more transparent than it is today. A representative democracy that is limited to the operation of a parliamentary electoral system that affords no opportunity to redress the gross and growing inequalities of wealth and real economic power in society, may rightly be regarded as a sham democracy.

This doesn’t mean that it is without value or merit. Freedom of expression and the freedom to organize, to resist and to strike, are precious freedoms won over decades and centuries of struggle by working people. They must be cherished and defended and cannot be taken for granted. The coming months and years are sure to see growing resistance against the unprecedented scale of attacks on the public sector and on the living standards of the people. The degree of success of the popular struggles that lie ahead will also be the measure of the growth of a genuine people’s democracy. Such a democratic movement will not reject the parliamentary system, but neither will it be confined to it. Only by the determined mobilization of extra-parliamentary power, through trade unions, industrial action, direct action, occupations, sit-ins and large-scale community initiatives will a real democratic popular movement be able to tip the balance of power away from the corporate elite and into the hands of the majority of the people.

With All Due Respect

With characteristic wit and sarcasm, H.L. Mencken had this comment on the prevailing social norm granting respect to religion:

“We must respect the other fellow’s religion, but only in the sense and to the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children smart.”

Like so many of Mencken’s cynical bon mots – and you’ll thank me for this link – this one was the product of much careful thought. He barely concedes a grudging, limited respect to religious faith and only for the implied, pragmatic reason that it’s good to try to get along with others when discussing emotion-laden subjects where argument is pointless.

It sounds like Mencken was advocating toleration rather than respect. He certainly did not favor anything like genuine and sincere respect for religion based on admiration, honor, or deference. He was, in fact, a staunch atheist who often skewered creationism, fundamentalism, organized religion, and theism.

I certainly agree with the notion that we should as a rule try to refrain from expressing opinions that may cause offense or hurt others’ feelings. Keeping quiet about certain topics is generally the way to go in any normal, mutually respectful society.

Ah, but there’s the rub: I hate to tell you we no longer live in that kind of society (not that we ever did). These days we’re deep in the throes of a destructive culture war that was started by ignorant, arrogant, and aggressively intolerant people on the religious and political right. Given this nasty, menacing reality, a more apt analogy for our times would sound more like this:

Those other fellows on the religious and political right not only believe that their wives are beautiful and their children smart, but they openly complain that we and our wives and children are ugly and dumb, and moreover we brought it on ourselves and we’re a threat to all decent, respectable people. At least to my ear that’s how the Beckian melodrama comes across from bigoted, repressive, right-wing religious and political leaders and their media shills. (This time I won’t even discuss their endemic hypocrisy.)

So Does Religion Deserve Respect?

In a word, no. And here I’ll begin to explain why. In this country religion has a huge and, in my view, generally negative influence on culture and politics and is undeserving of sincere and genuine respect. However, in the interest of not offending more people than necessary, I want to make a few important distinctions – call it a disclaimer, if you will:

First, I have lost interest in debating the existence of a god or gods. I paid my dues long ago and made up my mind about supernatural entities, and I have not encountered any arguments worth thinking about in a very long time. So on that subject I’ll go along with Thomas Jefferson, who famously said, “But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” With so many strongly held beliefs and shades of belief out there in the teeming marketplace of U.S.culture, religious tolerance is essential to the maintenance of a peaceful society. But it goes without saying that tolerance must be mutual, and in this country it’s not.

Second, I have no quarrel with moderate believers who uphold Jefferson’s dictum regarding the absolute necessity of maintaining a strict wall of separation between church and state. I just wish those moderate religious folks could join us infidels in denouncing the menacing theocratic trend in one of our two major political parties. Or one and a half, if you count the loony Tea Party. (Just because they’re ignorant lunatics doesn’t mean they won’t prevail. I’m starting to think almost anything is possible in this crazy-quilt nation. Anything, that is, except rational, evidence-based decision-making.)

Third, it distresses me that my conclusions about the religion of Islam are at odds with the position taken by so many Western liberals, truly progressive people whom I admire and consider to be comrades in the great culture war raging across this country. I’m sorry, but contrary to disingenuous Muslim propaganda and conventional progressive wisdom, Islam is not a religion of peace whose reputation has been sullied by a minority of violent extremists. In his book, The End of Faith, Sam Harris provided five pages of quotations from the Qur’an that he called “a litany of sacred hatred.” He added that those quotations were far from exhaustive and far from the worst.

The bottom-line point of my lengthy disclaimer is simply this: It would never occur to me to write a column like this if religion were a benign matter of individual conscience accompanied by genuine tolerance across the broad spectrum of belief and non belief. Believe me, I don’t want to be in this place. But the problem is that a politically powerful religious faction – the religious right – is trying to break my leg. They are exploiting the social norm of respect for religion to their own advantage while using their scary political power to undermine virtually everything I value about this country. And in that matter I think I speak for the great majority of progressives. We understand the corrosive nature of the army of fanatics who place their Bible-based religious certainty far above their respect for the laws and democratic traditions of this country.

Most believers – notably Muslims worldwide and their fundagelical counterparts here on the religious right – think their religions deserve special treatment. Call it a sacredness exemption – not only from taxes and other legal requirements, but from any form of criticism. This immunity is lethally enforced by law in Islamic nations; it is aided and abetted by discriminatory customs, laws, and court decisions in the U.S. Christianity is unquestionably privileged in this country in a great many ways that strain or violate the First Amendment. But as I said, they put their version of “God’s word” above their loyalty to the Constitution.

In the view of Muslim and Christian fundamentalists – and Muslim is tantamount to fundamentalist – their faiths come directly from the creator of the universe and deserve to be placed on a higher plane than mere mundane considerations like reason, evidence, and constitutional law. Their highest loyalty, under threat of everlasting punishment, is to their version of the all-knowing and all-seeing creator-god as interpreted by their chosen religious leaders. The perfect word of God (or Allah) as recorded in the Bible (or the Qur’an) trumps everything. Given that mindset, they demand respectfor their ridiculous superstitions, respect in the sense of honor and deference. In Islamic countries this is enforced in the form of harsh blasphemy laws that favor Islam and keep other religions in check. In the U.S. Christianity is privileged by virtue of its majority status and through prejudicial laws and court decisions. And it almost certainly will get worse.

I’m running out of allotted words for this column, so I’ll focus on Islam, which is depressingly in the news once again following the murderous rampage that took place in what has been called one of the most peaceful areas of Afghanistan. Why did enraged Muslim hordes overrun a United Nations compound and murder guards and workers? Apparently those infantile lunatics were frustrated because they couldn’t find Americans to murder, so they went after anyone associated with the hated U.S.

And why the sudden spike in hatred? They learned via their corrupt President Karzai that the infamous Reverend Terry Jones burned a copy of the Qur’an in Gainesville Florida (which, FYI, was my home for nine years). Islamic government and religious leaders are now calling for the arrest, conviction, and punishment of Jones, never mind that he committed no crime, that his act was protected free speech. And just as in the case of the infamous Danish cartoonists, I’m sure that many influential Western liberals will focus their condemnation on Jones while making excuses for the rampaging, murderous, Muslim religious idiots.

And what about those moderate American Muslims? Do they even exist?

Sam Harris gets to the nub of it when he asks if “moderate Muslims” will defend Jones’s right to burn a Qur’an. And make no mistake about it, that is the issue, an issue that has long been settled in the U.S. When I say settled, I mean this: Jones, or any U.S. citizen, has the right to burn a Qur’an. Or a bible. Or any other damn book they please. Jones is an asshole, but that’s beside the point – it’s a free-speech issue. Free speech, which is nothing less than the foundation of all our other freedoms.

Muslims could care less about free speech. As Harris points out, "A recent poll showed that thirty-six percent of British Muslims (ages 16-24) believe that a person should be killed for leaving the faith. Sixty-eight percent of British Muslims feel that their neighbors who insult Islam should be arrested and prosecuted, and seventy-eight percent think that the Danish cartoonists should have been brought to justice. And these are British Muslims."

That’s right, British – i.e., Western – Muslims! How do you think that poll would turn out in the U.S.? Just where are all those moderate Muslims we keep hearing about? What I’ve been hearing from Western Muslims sounds more like a public-relations conspiracy to downplay the prominent, hate-filled themes that appear throughout the Qur’an, themes that regularly become manifest in violence and abuses of fundamental human rights around the world. And it is a conspiracy that far too many Westerners are happy to promote.   

Just last week, under strong diplomatic opposition from the U.S. and other Western nations, the 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) agreed to suspend its twelve-year campaign in the United Nations that was aimed at criminalizing “defamation” of religion. For more than a decade the OIC had consistently won majority approval in both the U.N. Council on Human Rights and in the General Assembly for a series of resolutions condemning defamation of religion. While those resolutions did not have the force of law outside of Muslim countries, they were clearly intended as a step in the direction of a worldwide ban on speech critical of religion.

So for now, anyway, the U.N. has restored a measure of sanity in the form of an alternative resolution calling on member nations to protect the individual human rights of believers. But the whole episode makes me wonder why Islamic nations are even members of the U.N., considering that their actions in their own countries and elsewhere routinely fail to comply with the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.

Let me wrap this one up with two quotes, the first from Sam Harris:

“There is an uncanny irony here that many have noticed. The position of the Muslim community in the face of all provocations seems to be: Islam is a religion of peace, and if you say that it isn't, we will kill you. Of course, the truth is often more nuanced, but this is about as nuanced as it ever gets: Islam is a religion of peace, and if you say that it isn't, we peaceful Muslims cannot be held responsible for what our less peaceful brothers and sisters do. When they burn your embassies or kidnap and slaughter your journalists, know that we will hold you primarily responsible and will spend the bulk of our energies criticizing you for ‘racism’ and ‘Islamophobia.’ “

And this from H.L. Mencken:

"Morality is doing right, no matter what you are told. Religion is doing what you are told, no matter what is right."

Franklin Graham’s Warning to Christians: Another TV Evangelist Fruitcake Weighs in on the Muslim Menace

Recently, Franklin Graham, son and heir to his father’s Billy Graham Ministries, made some tomfool statements about how Christians were in grave danger from the Muslim menace here in America and abroad. Graham says that Muslims did not build this country, that the Jews and Christians did. And that Muslims are a real threat to all the Christians in the world. 

Franklin Graham’s Muslim Tirade

Franklin Graham’s words are laced with the bile and hatred our forefathers were fleeing from when they left to come to America.  It’s ironic that Graham would suggest that one religion is better than another because it (in his Billy Bob opinion) built America and another (Islam) did not.  The premise of freedom of religion is not, nor was it even when the founding fathers built America, based upon exclusive treatment of one religion over another.  Or any religion at all for that matter.  Graham is in conflict with his own words.  He is a fruitcake fanatic and doesn’t even know it.  But then most religious fanatics can’t see themselves.  They don’t do good mirror while doing perfect prejudice. But they all seem to have big cash registers to house all those tax-free donations to Christ. And their lucrative retirement pensions.

Funny thing, but these dudes like Franklin Graham who are eat up with telling us what God says and thinks seem to enjoy astronomical high salaries thanks to their pursuit of the “Jesus Business.” 

Graham’s huge salary: what would Jesus say?

Just how is it that a man of God, a man of the cloth can justify in his own heart that it is okay to take such huge sums from donations in the name of Christ to help the needy, the poor, the down-trodden, the sick? Besides, the organization headed by Billy Graham is so chocked full of other Graham family members that you got to ask, hey, is this a legitimate tax-exempt church or not? Or does it exist for the income and profit of the Graham family, just like the Kardashians manage to render fortunes from television and show business? Is there no shame? Is there no fear of the judgment to come from the Almighty? They try to scare all us poor sinners (without a billion dollar Jesus business like they have) that judgment lies ahead and that we better cough up some green to insure that we get through the pearly gates without a hitch. And that their Mercedes payments won’t be late.

Graham says that his organization, Samaritan’s Purse has funded his retirement pension. Last year, the Boone, NC based organization paid Graham 1.2 million dollars. Graham is quoted as saying he does his charity work because he loves it, that he would do it for free if he had to. I say let him. Take the 1.2 million and give it to the Japanese Tsunami relief fund or some other worth charity. We did not see Jesus taking huge chunks of money donated to his ministry, now did we? And He warned against the love of money, too, didn’t He? So what does that make Franklin Graham besides just another TV evangelist crook? 

Let Graham get his wish. Let him give his 1.2 Million dollar compensation to the poor as he vowed he would.

We are poised to go back into the Middle Ages where the Christians and Knights Templars can lead the Crusades against Islam by driving the Muslims from the Holy Land.  This time maybe we can drive them from America, eh, Franklin?  It’s not the gun that kills people; it is the person holding it, right?  Yet in this new brand of Islamaphobia, it is the gun (Islam) that kills people, not the Muslim (pretending to be a human being), right?  I don’t know.  Franklin Graham is obviously demented beyond a cure, and he wants his Jim Jones solution to Islam to prevail, you can bet, although he says he likes Muslims as a people.  Yeah, right.  We are no better than the popes who blessed the knights for going to kill Muslims much in the same way Sarah Palin spured on the troops (and George Bush) to kill Muslims at a church event in Alaska.  Sadder than Graham’s religious madness is the number of Christians who accept him and believe him that Muslims are bad and second rate because they did not help to build America.   They even try to tear it down, like when they destroyed the Twin
Towers, right?  But wait a minute Franklin; those were terrorists, not just Muslims, right? 

Sadder still is that bogus religious leaders like Graham never answer that question outright.  They keep letting the pot simmer so that maybe the twain will blend into one entity and become the same, you think?  As an oppressor o freedom of religion, how is Graham different from those persecutors the Pilgrims were fleeing from when they came to America? 

Graham’s rhetoric is disgusting. He warns that President Obama is engaged in a conspiracy with the Brotherhood of Muslims to hurt the United States of America. He says all Christians are in grave danger. Wow. Is this just another Glenn Beck, Hannity Insanity attempt of Fox News to discredit Obama? Do real Christians really believe the hate rhetoric of false prophets like Franklin Graham? You got to wonder, too, if Billy Graham is so wonderful and notable as a true minister of the gospel, why doesn’t Billy take young Franklin out to the wood shed?

Franklin Graham’s idiot theories on Muslim Conspiracy and the President of the United States

Say does Franklin still get tax-exempt status as a church?  Bet there will be a long line and wait at the Pearly Gates for all those TV evangelists who snookered people out of their money to donate for another form of religious abuse of humans who do not hold the same beliefs as they do.  And our government gives them aide in letting them have tax-exempt status.  No wonder how Pat Robertson could buy a controlling interest in the Bank of Scotland.

Must we continue to act like retards by letting these charlatans rob honest Christians with their toothy grins and no substance save hate campaigns against non-Christians? I vote for a preacher tax on all TV evangelists who receive $500,000.00 or more annually in the service of God. Let it be stiff, too, say 50% on all above $500M.

Fox News Dissected by a Famous REAL Wellness Pioneer

I just read an interesting, highly critical assessment of Fox "News," though it was written quite some time ago. The author is someone whose body of work I very much admire. This highly regarded commentator described the "fair and balanced" network as a "sewer of bad news, of slander and of all base and unpleasant things." Harsh - yes, but justified in my opinion. Better than any critics on the Left or elsewhere, my hero seemed to accurately identify the effects of misinformation and poison that the oligarchs and Right Wing fundamentalists at Fox release on a daily basis. 

It may seem harsh to some but I could give examples of all the charges leveled. Perhaps you could, as well. Paraphrasing, here is the entirety of the Fox News critique by my REAL wellness role model. 

They seem to know every mean thing that has been said against those who do not embrace the regressive and strident agenda or the Right. They know where your party is losing, and the other is making gains. They believe every story against the interests of the opposition and distrust any defense. They display a stupid candor, that is, they always believe the statement of their allies and never suspect anything coming from their side. Nothing pleases them so much as horrible news concerning a good man not of their camp and they never deny a lie in their favor. They always find fault with the one side and favor with the other. They are frightfully anxious that all candidates should stand well with their perspectives, and perceive only the virtues of their allies. They search every nook and corner of their conscience to find a reason for deserting a principle. They expect that in moments of victory the opposition will be magnanimous, while in defeat they repeat prophecies made after the event. They regard the reputation of the other as common prey for all the vultures, hyenas and jackals and take a sad pleasure in the misfortunes of their critics. They forget principles to gratify their friends and slander their enemies. They expect forgiveness for their malingering while slandering those of different views. 

These words were written in the 1890's by Robert Green Ingersoll, the great American orator in a piece called "Fool Friends." No, it was not about Fox News. However, I thought of Fox when I read "Fool Friends," so thought I'd see how well the criticism of such friends applied to the network. It does seem to fit our times for that purpose. 

If he were around today doing what he did then, I think Ingersoll would target this dreadful propaganda ministry. He might try to shame it into reforms or, more likely, give speeches that would turn off the some of the enthusiasm of its easily deluded follows. 

That's my take on Fox, in any case.

Donald B. Ardell is the Well Infidel.  He favors evidence over faith, reason over revelation and meaning and purpose over spirituality.  His enthusiasm for reason, exuberance and liberty are reflected in his books (14), newsletter (569 editions of a weekly report) and lectures across North America and a dozen other countries. Write Don at awr.realwellness@gmail.com