Showing posts with label SOCAS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SOCAS. Show all posts

Monday, May 7, 2018

I'm sorry you feel SOCAS is not important (1)


Generally not something I would expand upon but this "head in the sand" attitude needs to cease as it has been going on for way too long. Due to space considerations I could not elaborate as much as I would have liked concerning some points I made. So here we go, and this is gonna be long, very long!

As I noted, religionists have a troubled relationship with race and segregation.
In May 1969, a group of African-American parents in Holmes County, Mississippi, sued the Treasury Department to prevent three new whites-only K-12 private academies from securing full tax-exempt status, arguing that their discriminatory policies prevented them from being considered “charitable” institutions,,,
In  Green v. Kennedy [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/309/1127/2096127/] (David Kennedy was secretary of the treasury at the time), decided in January 1970, the plaintiffs won a preliminary injunction, which denied the “segregation academies” tax-exempt status until further review. In the meantime, the government was solidifying its position on such schools. Later that year, President Richard Nixon ordered the Internal Revenue Service to enact a new policy denying tax exemptions to all segregated schools in the United States. Under the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which forbade racial segregation and discrimination, discriminatory schools were not—by definition—“charitable” educational organizations, and therefore they had no claims to tax-exempt status; similarly, donations to such organizations would no longer qualify as tax-deductible contributions.
What Balmer argues, Paul Weyrich used this opportunity to organize the Religious Right as the IRS began sending questionnaires to church-related “segregation academies.” One such institution which become the battleground is Bob Jones University. While the initial legal battle began in 1971, it wasn't until 1983that SCOTUS upheld the right of the IRS to rescind the tax-exempt status of the University in Bob Jones University v. United States 461 U.S. 574 (1983).


From Amanda Marcotte,
Balmer doesn't mention it, but there was one other shift in the public consciousness going on at the time. The "Stop ERA" campaign, headed up by Christian right leader Phyllis Schlafly to kill the Equal Rights Amendment banning sex discrimination, got moving in 1972. By the time male Christian conservative leaders like Weyrich and Falwell decided to make abortion a centerpiece issue, Schlafly had done the yeoman's work of convincing huge numbers of evangelical Christians that feminists were a threat to the very fabric of society. With hostility to women's equality rising, making the anti-abortion pitch was probably much, much easier.
In regards to the Bible being used as a sledge-hammer (justifying slavery and anti-LGBTQI+ discrimination), two books come to mind: Saving The Original Sinner: How Christians Have Used the Bible’s First Man to Oppress, Inspire and Make Sense of the World, by Karl. W. Giberson (2015) AND The Bible Tells Me So: Why Defending Scripture Has Made Us Unable to Read It by Peter Enns (2015). Both books explore the intellectual games used by conservative Christians to “protect” the Bible and justify their actions or in-actions.

It is in chapter 9 that Giberson explores racism and slavery. Contrary to AiG some of the most ardent racists were so-called Christians who used the Bible to support such. (I contrast with Ham and AiG as I am more familiar with their stance than any other creationist/religionist organization.) Just for shits-n-giggle, this is AiG's review of Giberson's book (abstract).
According to Dr. Karl Giberson, the molecules-to-man evolution that supposedly spawned us also made us the morally messed up creatures that we are. In Saving the Original Sinner he attacks belief in the historicity of Adam. He teaches that we are “original sinners” not as Adam’s descendants but as a result of our evolutionary heritage. Believing sin and death did not enter human history through Adam but are the natural results of evolution, he considers Adam irrelevant. Gone with Adam is the biblical foundation for understanding why the “last Adam” Jesus Christ came to die for the sins of the first Adam’s descendants. Bible-believing creationists who believe Adam and Eve were the first parents of all people refuse to accept Darwinian evolution’s explanation of human origins. Therefore, belief in Adam is a stronghold that evolutionist Karl Giberson assaults with this book, hoping to precipitate a crisis of faith in biblical creationists.
While I would have to review my copy of Giberson book to be sure, but this goes to Ham's fear of losing authority, something I have written about before - specifically The Evolution Connection.  Why he pushes so hard for creationism to be taught in schools.

As for my take away from Enns' book, while he was a bit more fluffy for my overall liking, he makes an interesting point that I believe highlights the mind-set of the Religious Right, "God never told the Israelites to kill the Canaanites. The Israelites believed that God told them to kill the Canaanites."

Again for shits-n-giggles, AiG's critique.
What we know of Jesus Christ’s love and grace comes to us through the reliable testimony of God’s Word. That simple and beautiful biblical truth, summed up in the familiar phrase “The Bible tells me so” from the hymn “Jesus Loves Me,” introduces many children to the love of Jesus. This sweet refrain also reminds adults that God’s revelation to us in His Word is the foundation for faith and the ultimate source of truth. A new book capitalizing on the familiar song—The Bible Tells Me So: Why Defending Scripture Has Made Us Unable to Read It by Dr. Peter Enns—is a collection of compromises, written for the layman. The book wastes a great deal of ink claiming that the Bible is simply not to be trusted or taken seriously. In it Dr. Enns continues his destructive influence on the Christian faith and biblical understanding through his relentless assault on God’s Word.
We are all well aware of the "clobber passages" used to justify hatred and discrimination, re-hashing them now would be a bit redundant (and make this post even longer).  What I want to focus on are some of the preachers of hate both members of clergy and pols-n-pundits.  As I said many years ago, this type of rhetoric is no longer fringe.
Sorry to say, if you do not speak out against the extremism you condone it, it is no longer fringe when it is occurs in our everyday life. To borrow a phrase from a wise friend, I leave you with this: "The religions of "love" teaching hate!!"
Scott Lively in his own words,,,
"There is no question that homosexuality figures prominently in the history of the Holocaust. … The first years of terrorism against the Jews were carried out by the homosexuals of the SA."
– The Pink Swastika, 1996

"Homosexuality is thus biologically (and to varying degrees morally) equivalent to pedophilia, sado-masochism, bestiality and many other forms of deviant behavior."
– “Deciphering 'Gay' Word-Speak and Language of Confusion," May 2002

Lively is currently running for Governor of Massachusetts, is responsible, in part,  for the "kill the gays" bill in Uganda. With author Kevin Abrams, wrote The Pink Swastika (1995); which is thoroughly debunked. Believes his advocacy helped inspire the Russian law passed in 2013 that bans “propaganda for non-traditional sexual relations among minors.”

Next comes a man who is of the opinion all gays are pedophiles and will have sex with anything, believing all homosexuals should kill themselves. (See:: America's Hate Preachers a BBC documentary, highlighted below, and this little gem.)
ANDERSON: To normal people, homosexuality [and] pedophilia are disgusting. To a normal person.
LIVINGSTON: Why do you put pedophilia and homosexuality in the same group?
ANDERSON: They are in the same group! Because any man who would have sex with another man would have sex with anything. Period. Like, I’ll put it this way: Any man who would have sex with another man would have sex with an animal.
LIVINGSTON: That’s blatantly not true, though!
ANDERSON: It is true! That’s reality. Even if you don’t think it’s reality…
LIVINGSTON: What do you think homosexuals should do, then?
ANDERSON: Kill themselves, as far as I’m concerned, because they’re horrible, wicked people. They’re just gonna keep molesting and destroying people. So I don’t have any advice for homosexuals, except to put a bullet in your own head so that you don’t molest my kids or anyone else’s kids.
Steven Anderson has been banned in Jamaica (2018), Botswana (deported - 2016), South Africa (2016), the UK (2016) and Canada.  He is known for, not only the above, but also calling on the government to execute homosexuals as well as declaring there are  “50 less pedophiles in this world” after the Pulse nightclub shooting. (Theodore Shoebat is another anti-LGBTQI+ crusader who has also advocated for executing homosexuals. Along with his father Walid "more than a few holes in his backstory" Shoebat, they are a potent hate duo.)

[Besides advocating for the death of LGBT people, Steven Anderson also made an antisemitic film and promoted Holocaust denial (“Marching to Zion.” released in March 2015 - mirror site), saying the Jews lied about the Holocaust in order to create the state of Israel, and that slave laborers at Auschwitz were compensated for their work and could buy items at a commissary.  This is a horrid little film and if you have a strong stomach, it is worth the watch.]

Next on my list is Gordon Klingenschmitt (sadly a hometown boy as he was born in Buffalo and hence my interest), this man should be a nobody but for his one claim to fame. In 2006 he was court-martialed and subsequently ousted from the Navy and sued in the Court of Federal Claims, claiming that he was wrongfully discharged from the Navy and seeking reinstatement, and arguing that his First Amendment rights were violated. (Readers Digest version.)

Now Gordon has had a fairly long career by hate-mongers standards.  While not as vitriolic as Anderson, he is anti-LGBTQI+; he's a bizarre little man. Although he has a thing for "demonic spirits". What makes Klingenschmitt so dangerous, he has served as a state legislator (CO) and is considering another run in 2018.

As Luning notes,
A lightning rod for controversy who put actual lightning rods to shame during his one term in the General Assembly, Klingenschmitt maintained President Barack Obama is possessed by demons and once performed an exorcism on him. He accused U.S. Rep. Jared Polis, who is gay, of wanting to “join ISIS in beheading Christians,” although Klingenschmitt later said the remark wasn’t meant seriously. He was admonished by House GOP leadership for calling it “the curse of God upon America for our sin of not protecting innocent children in the womb” when a pregnant Longmont woman was attacked and her baby was cut from her womb.
Not only is he considering another run for office, he does have the ear of some notable if not infamous politicians. As I have sated before, Klingenschmitt is guilty of biblical hyperliteralism; it is a false way of biblical interpretation which leads to his many bigoted statements.

While Gordon is in some cases mild, not so with our next homophobe,  Kevin Swanson.  He like Anderson and Shoebat advocate for the execution of homosexuals.  What's worse is he has political clout as demonstrated by the 2015 National Religious Liberties Conference. An event he organized featuring, then, three Republican contenders for the presidency:  Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, and  Ted Cruz.

As Katherine Stewart notes for the NYT,
The comfortable thing to do would be to dismiss Mr. Swanson as just another wombat from the embarrassing fringe of American politics. But that would be a mistake. Mr. Swanson’s murderous imaginings did not interfere with his ability to attract senior Republican figures to his conference, including as a keynote speaker Bob Vander Plaats, an Iowa politician who will grant the “Most Wanted Endorsement of 2016,” according to the Conservative Review.

Mr. Swanson is the product of a significant political movement that has coalesced around the theme of religious liberty. Many of its leaders and their allies appear at the Family Research Council’s annual Values Voters Summit. Other power centers include Liberty University (now a required stop on the campaign trail); conservative policy organizations like the American Family Association and Concerned Women for America; and Christian legal advocacy groups like Liberty Counsel (whose co-founder, Mat Staver, acted as Kim Davis’s lawyer) and the Alliance Defending Freedom, the legal powerhouse behind the Hobby Lobby decision (whose president, Alan Sears, co-wrote a book in 2003 titled The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Freedom Today”).

When talking about religious conservatives in America, we might perhaps conjure up an image of a farmer in Iowa or a small-business owner in Ohio who goes to church and holds traditional values. But the leaders to whom such conservatives deliver their votes have a distinct, often different, political vision.
Speaking of Ted Cruz (and by proxy his father Rafael) let's take a look-see first at elder Cruz and his dominionist ideology, "that fundamentalist Christians should take over, well, just about everything".
It’s not hard to figure out Rafael Cruz’s basic message. He has given scores, probably hundreds, of sermons and talks at religious and political gatherings, and many are on YouTube. His primary theme is that the United States is a “Christian nation” and that only true believers who adhere to biblical principles—that is, who accept the literal truth of the Bible, as Rafael Cruz and other fundamentalists see it—are worthy of guiding the United States forward. He regularly rails against pastors and church leaders who eschew politics and do not enter the political fray to combat the enemy: secular humanism.

Rafael Cruz is an advocate of Christian dominionism, which essentially holds that fundamentalist Christians should take over, well, just about everything. Speaking at a Texas church in 2012, Rafael Cruz told the crowd that God instructed Adam and Eve to go forth, multiply, and, as he put it, “take dominion over all my creation.” He said this meant that true-believers ought to dominate all areas of life: “That dominion is not just in the church, that dominion is over every area—society, education, government, and economics.” (During that sermon, he also noted that husbands, not wives, should be the “spiritual leader” of their families.) In Cruz’s view, those who accept Christ and his word (as Cruz believes it should be understood) will prosper spiritually and financially. In that same sermon, he noted that God not only anoints priests to lead the faithful, but also anoints “kings…to take dominion.” By that, he means those who rule a nation, and, he adds, these rulers one day (and he makes it sound as if this day will come soon) will transfer the wealth of the “wicked” to the “righteous.”
So, how far do you think the apple falls from the tree? Rafael Cruz is not only Ted Cruz's father, he is also his closest personal and professional mentor who actively campaigned for his son among evangelical voters in regards to the 2016 Presidential election cycle. While Junior's speeches are not laden with hate like his father's, he does accept his father endorsement and council.

It's difficult to succinctly pin a direct statement like Swanson's "kill the gays" on Cruz; but he sure does attract a, shall we say, questionable crowd. For example, Mike Bickle (IHOP) has notably claimed God sent Adolf Hitler to hunt down Jews who refuse to convert to Christianity; James Dobson of Focus on the Family, who has suggested taking up arms against transgendered individuals; Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty who in 2013 had the infamous GQ interview where he stated
"Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men," he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: "Don't be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won't inherit the kingdom of God. Don't deceive yourself. It's not right."
Bob Vander Plaats of Family Leader,  who led a successful 2010 effort to oust three state Supreme Court justices who ruled in favor of marriage equality.

Pamela Gellar, the anti-Muslim activist who claim to fame is her 2010 campaign in opposition to the Park 51 Islamic Center project in Manhattan, which she deemed the “Ground Zero Mosque”. Not only is she associated with National Security Advisor John Bolton, but Richard Spencer and Milo Yiannopoulos as well.  She is an active columnist at Breibart and WND (note:: direct link be careful!) 

Now just to demonstrate how wacked these associations are, consider this,,, Theodore Shoebat has, in the past, called for Pamela Geller to be put to death for associating with “faggots” and “sodomites” at the “Gays for Trump” event during the RNC convention noted above. I shit you not!!

The list of influences on Cruz is endless in regards to what I consider far-right crazies (for complete list.) But,,, it highlights very well that no matter how small the crazies influence, it has ramifications  for a wider audience.  In some case individuals that are responsible for making our laws. It is why I personally bitch so much in regards to SOCAS.

These are but a few individuals, some I have had personal run-ins with but most interactions have been on the inter-web.  I am going to leave with one last person, someone whom falls into the former category mentioned; Michael Brown.

(Some individuals I have mentioned for a specific reason.   Currently Ted Cruz is up for re-election in Texas against Beto O'Rourke.  While he is not well liked by his colleagues, Cruz does wield much power - w/ Mike Lee of UT - and like Mike Pence, his notion of theocratic control concerning the "Seven Mountains Mandate" is scary, the individuals listed endorse his brand of dominionism, it even scarier.)

Like Scott Lively, Brown has no problem exporting his hate nor like Klingenschmitt claiming homosexual demonic forces or some such shit. Brown is also a big purveyor of the "Christian persecution" narrative (I am a fan of JMG and use him as reference in many a posting, including this one.)  But what makes Brown dangerous, (besides his association with Lou Engle, founder of the International House of Prayer (IHOP) and leader of TheCall; a man who believes the LGBT fight for equality is a bigger threat than Islamic terrorists), he employs verbal and religious violence as a tool of thought and instruction. "[V]erbal, spiritual and theological violence will be to silence and strip all LGBT people of their legal, civil and social equality, freedom and liberty, effectively creating a theocracy governed by the principles they believe are set forward in both Old Testament and New Testament law."


IOWs, while Brown may not advocate for physical violence, his "imagery and allegory, are a threat to LGBT people, even if he and his organization are not,,, there is a thin line between violent thoughts and words, and violent actions and deeds. I believe it is this precariously thin line Brown seems to disregard,,," (From  “Jesus Manifesto,” via Interstateq.)
“Revolution means upheaval. Revolution means the overthrowing of the status quo. We dare not downplay the significance of the word. Revolution is a matter of life and death, and our revolution flows from the blood of the Savior to the blood of the martyr. We put down our sword and take up our cross, overcoming Satan by the blood of the Lamb, by the word of our testimony, and by not loving our lives so much as to shrink from death (Rev. 12:11).”
Our revolution is fueled by the power of the gospel, and the gospel does violence to the forces of hell. We must recover the fullness of the gospel of Jesus! It is nothing less than a direct assault on the kingdom of Satan, a frontal attack on hostile, spiritual powers, a mortal confrontation of light against darkness. It brings about the ultimate counterculture conflict.”
"We’re in a war, and war means conflict, hardship, and sacrifice. As Leonard Ravenhill wrote, ‘When a nation calls its prime men to battle, homes are broken, weeping sweethearts say their good-byes, businesses are closed, college careers are wrecked, factories are refitted for wartime production, rationing and discomforts are accepted — all for war. Can we do less for the greatest fight that this world has ever known outside of the cross — this end-time siege on sanity, morality, and spirituality?'”
"Our society is deteriorating all around us and even non-believers sense that something is wrong. Why? It is because we, the people of God, the army of the Lord Jesus, the messengers of liberation, the ambassadors of reconciliation, have been sidetracked by the love of this world and distracted by the cares of this age.”
Matt sums up the issue well in the comments, responding to Brown,  "my utmost concern is your verbally and theologically violent rhetoric and language. People have a right to be aware of what you are teaching and how it is being taught. People have a right to be aware of the possible threat — not from you or your group — but from others who hear your words and are unable to distinguish between your “spiritual concepts” and allegory, and real calls for physical violence."


So I will end there (I leave out Westboro as they are no longer the only player in the game), but to say I am "reeeeeaally reaching with those examples. Especially if you're trying to use them as examples in the present day," is utter bull-fucking-shit. You and your head-in-the-sand ilk need to start paying attention.  Hell even my 16y/o co-worker is more aware of the religious batshittery going on without doing a deep dive into all the religious rhetoric.

Wednesday, September 27, 2017

Show Notes:: Chris Rodda on Anti-LGBTQI Captain Sonny Hernandez



As you know we are  not a scripted show, so the dialogue will not follow this "outline". Due to the nature of the topic and the amount of material, I made notes for myself and co-hosts of what I hoped to cover and the material available for background information

Chris's original story appears here and here.

IMO::  At the heart of it, this is a SOCAS issue complicated by the inclusion of the military.  A point that will become clear as we talk.  What Hernandez advocates is Christian theocracy, or as I prefer Christian Sharia.  The mentality he promotes is no different than the more ardent forms of Islam; Daesh comes to mind.  It is a point many former and current military member have remarked to me and in comments of the various articles.  I am sure Chris is well aware of theses sentiments.  It is why MRFF is so important. (And by proxy Chris's work with Liars as this is a notion espoused by Barton.)

The controversy raises questions over the role of chaplains and where the boundaries lie between spiritual leadership and innate freedoms of religion and speech guaranteed under the Constitution that all service-members swear to “support and defend.”

In some strange ways, this issue also ties in with the current flap of DayGloMan v the NFL and the Pledge debacle in schools.

Q:: What is MRFF, who is Mikey, and what is your role?

Before we get going, as of Sunday night I have 40+ articles concerning the debacle and related issues with Hernandez.  This story has taken off like no one expected and I believe (OK I know) you and MRFF are a big reason as to why. (About fucking time the MSM didn't just blow MRFF.)  Q:: How do you feel about that notion, especially considering some of the public criticism (ie FOX news) that Mikey gets as well as MRFF?

So, this first point is one you open with in your article concerning the oath that Hernandez took but isn't there something in the Christian Bible, in Matthew about if you speak an oath you will be bound by it? Every person that enters military service in the US swears an oath to the US Constitution to protect and defend it. This so called Chaplin would have them break faith with their god. I'd ask, who is the one worshiping Satan?

Q::  So who is this Sonny Hernandez character?
Article in question (BarbWire)
Background per MRFF

Some of the previous writings of Chaplain Hernandez, along with his “tag team” Bible-believing blogging buddy Lieutenant Colonel Jonathan Dowty (a.k.a. the “Christian Fighter Pilot”), which led to MRFF’s filing of its initial DoD/IG complaint in April and other supplemental complaints, see these prior posts:
Q::  Concerning his misogyny statements, Hernandez was writing as a blogger on Air Force Lt. Col. Jonathan Dowty's “Christian Fighter Pilot” blog.  Without getting too far into the rabbit hole, can you explain the import of this? 

Also mentioned, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-rodda/gay-bashing-chaplain-endo_b_13867166.html

[Dowty was the slime ball who went after Brig. Gen. Kristin Goodwin (then Select), who had been nominated to be the Air Force Academy’s next commandant of cadets, of being a liar. Dowty’s basis for this accusation? Goodwin graduated from the Air Force Academy in 1993, but the policy of “Don’t ask, don’t tell” (DADT) wasn’t implemented until 1994. Therefore, according to Lt. Col. Dowty, Goodwin, who is a lesbian, must have lied about her sexual orientation in order to join the Air Force.]

So, our "benighted researcher", you seemed to really get under his skin in one particular article.  Q:: What makes Hernandez's "case" so important? Besides the fact he has been a thorn in MRFFs side 
http://christianfighterpilot.com/2017/06/27/us-military-continues-to-ignore-mikey-weinstein/ 
and
http://christianfighterpilot.com/2017/06/06/mrff-operates-in-the-red-takes-government-money-but-mikey-weinstein-profits/
He has flat out and very publicly instructed members of the U.S. military to disregard and disobey the Constitution.

In his article, Hernandez did nothing short of instructing service members to disobey the Constitution that they swore an oath to uphold, with statements such as these,,,
  • Christian service members who openly profess and support the rights of Muslims, Buddhists, and all other anti-Christian worldviews to practice their religions — because the language in the Constitution permits — are grossly in error, and deceived.
  • “There is no exegetical support, and no moral justification for any Christian service member to openly profess or support the alleged rights of anti-Christians. Christian service members must share the Gospel with unbelievers so they can be saved, not support unbelievers to worship their false gods that will lead them to hell.”
To layman eyes, the anti-LGBTQI stance and his misogyny aside, that really is not the issue here is it.  At least based on your response, "No, Chaplain Hernandez, the right to religious freedom is not just an “alleged” right, nor is this right something that the Constitution merely “permits.” It is a right that the Constitution mandates!"  Q::  Can you expand on that a bit as to exactly what you are referring to?

A third point that you note, "baffling them with bullshit".  I have read and re-read his supposed instructions to fellow Bible-believing chaplains and I can't make head or tails of it.
Therefore, if military chaplains are criticized by individuals for not accommodating all service members, and are told to resign from the military since they cannot care for all, just ask them this question: ‘Does the free exercise of religion apply to ‘all’ service members or only service members whose beliefs concur with yours?’ If the response is: ‘Military chaplains must provide for all or they are not fit to serve,’ they are now guilty of violating their own criteria of providing for all, since they are establishing a religion that requires every service member to accommodate evil even if their sincerely held convictions prohibit them from doing so. However, if they respond to the question by saying that the free exercise of religion is for ‘all,’ simply tell them: Thank you very much.
From what I can make of his statement, Hernandez is stating that HIS interpretation of HIS religiondictates that HE is allowed to and MUST discriminate against others HE deems less worthy.  Basically HIS interpretation of the Bile trumps the Constitution - which is against the oath he took when entering the service.  It's the "I'm Special" treatment that Kim Davis expected.

A point in an article from AFTimes. Don Byrd writing for the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty, states, that the idea of ”[d]enying the rights of non-Christians is an offense to American liberty. But it also undermines the strength of the Christian faith by suggesting it is threatened by a truly free conscience.  The success of a religion should not depend on the extent to which the rights of others are restricted.”  Basically Byrd underscores your contention that Hernandez publicly instructed members of the U.S. military to disregard and disobey the  Constitution.

MRFFs response
Initial complaint about Captain Hernandez was in April. It called for the chaplain to be investigated over a blog post titled: "How was Col Goodwin - an open homosexual - able to enter the Air Force?"  The complaint accused the chaplain of believing his "bigoted, homophobic, misogynistic" beliefs "take a higher precedence than the law and federal ethical standards".

In a response to the Friendly Atheist, you stated,  and I loved this,
Imagine if a Muslim chaplain tried to pull this shit. He’s be out of a job immediately — and cause Fox News to talk about Sharia Law for the next week. I would say imagine a Humanist chaplain doing the same… but there are none in the military. Meanwhile, Christians like Hernandez have plenty of power in the military and they want to make sure that no other religion gets any respect — even when all those soldiers share a mutual goal of protecting our country.
Which brings us to the crux of the matter, Hernandez's latest article "blatantly and indisputably advocates the subordinating of the U.S. Constitution to his personal Christian ideology and violated his Oath of Office as a commissioned officer, as well as Title 18, U.S. Code § 2387’s criminal prohibitions against counseling or urging insubordination, disloyalty, or ‘refusal of duty’ to other military members."

Complaints of military chaplains engaging in overtly sectarian behavior have doubled since Donald Trump became president, according to MRFF. The Hernandez piece was evidence of President Donald Trump emboldening the far fringes of the Christian right.

"America’s military members look to the president for direction and inspiration," he said. "Trump’s statements and actions have fully endorsed and validated this unbridled tidal wave of fundamentalist Christian persecution, which is now more inextricably intertwined into the very fabric of our Department of Defence than ever before."

Might be a good point to interject this observation, one in which you commented concerning Salon's comparison to Gordon Klingenschmitt.  Hernandez actually appeared on Klingeshmitt's "Pray in Jesus' Name" program.  I consider him a Klingenschmitt wannabe.

Salon writes,
Perhaps Hernandez is trying to horn in on the turf of Gordon Klingenschmitt, a former Navy chaplain, who currently is the most notable Christian nationalist chaplain. Klingenschmitt became a minor Religious Right celebrity after he unsuccessfully and falsely claimed that punishment he faced for engaging in political activity in uniform was somehow a religious persecution.
,,,
Klingenschmitt created a myth around himself that he was persecuted for trying to pray in the name of Jesus. After Klingenschmitt was removed from the Navy, he turned his fake story into a web and local television show. He later successfully ran for the Colorado House of Representatives, serving a single term, in the process becoming legendary within the state for his numerous erratic and offensive statements.
I have also posted quite a bit concerning the douchenozzle, ripping into his terrible understanding of the Bible.

AF response
As for the AF response , there seems to be some confusion which you address here,
And it is the statement made by Lt. Col. Gibson — that the Air Force is not conducting an investigation — that makes the Stars and Stripes article very misleading, and led many to wrongly believe that Chaplain Hernandez has been cleared. This is not the case. Although it is true that the Air Force is not conducting an investigation, that’s because it wasn’t the Air Force that was asked to conduct the investigation in the first place. The complaint, filed by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), was filed with the Department of Defense Inspector General (DoD/IG), not the Air Force, so it is the DoD/IG that is conducting the investigation — an investigation that is still open and ongoing. (The Stars and Stripes article has now been corrected to correctly state that the complaint was filed with the DoD/IG, not the Air Force.)
Q:: Why is this important?
Initially reported by S&S that they were "standing behind" Hernandez's right to express his own views.

To wit Mikey responded,
The Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) and its legal counsel have reviewed the terribly erroneous Stars and Stripes article authored by its reporter Dianna Cahn released earlier this Tuesday evening and would like to make the following rebuttal. The second paragraph of the article incorrectly states, “The Military Religious Freedom Foundation, which advocates on behalf of a pluralistic military with sharp separation of church and state, CALLED ON THE AIR FORCE TO INVESTIGATE HERNANDEZ after the chaplain called Christian servicemembers who give credence to other faiths ‘counterfeit Christians.’ At the very outset, let me emphasize that MRFF NEVER ‘called on the Air Force to investigate Hernandez.’ Indeed, we at MRFF long ago gave up expecting ANYONE in the Air Force to enforce its own regulations and the Constitutional mandates to separate church and state and guarantee religious equality within its own ranks.
Something you also replied to via FB,
I am sitting here right now writing something about this as quickly as I can, but for now please read Mikey's statement, which he wrote immediately upon our seeing this completely misleading and inaccurate article from Stars and Stripes last night. The article's inaccuracy makes it sound like Hernandez has been cleared by quoting an Air Force spokesman saying that the Air Force is not conducting an investigation. That's true -- the Air Force is not conducting an investigation. But there’s no reason it would be. Why? Because it wasn’t the Air Force that was asked to conduct the investigation in the first place! It was the Department of Defense Inspector General (DoD/IG), not the Air Force, that MRFF's complaint against Hernandez was filed with, so it is the DoD/IG that is conducting the investigation — an investigation that is still open and ongoing.  (Stars and Stripes has now corrected its article to correctly state that the complaint was filed with the DoD/IG, not the Air Force.)
To which the S&S issued a correction, (a sloppy correction IMO),
Correction: A previous version of this story incorrectly identified the agency to which the Military Religious Freedom Foundation filed its complaint. It was filed with the Department of Defense Inspector General. The story also mischaracterized a christianfighterpilot.com blog post that questioned the integrity of a newly promoted brigadier general. This story has been corrected.
But the best part is this,
You know how I posted the Stars and Stripes article about the Air Force clearing Hernandez from the other day was wrong, and wrote about it on HuffPo yesterday? Well. lookie lookie at what's on the front page of Stars and Stripes right now!
It seems the AF is investigating,
After initially denying an investigation, the Air Force said Friday that its inspector general’s office is reviewing complaints against reserve chaplain Capt. Sonny Hernandez, who proclaimed that Christian servicemembers are wrong to support the rights of other faiths to practice their religion, actions that he said will lead them to hell.

“I can confirm that the Air Force is reviewing IG complaints made against Chaplain Hernandez that were referred to the Air Force Inspector General’s office,” Air Force spokesman Col. Patrick Ryder said Friday. “At this time it would be inappropriate to comment on the nature of those complaints or speculate on potential outcomes.”

An Air Force Reserve spokesman said earlier this week that the service was not investigating Hernandez.
See also

Even FFRF has voiced there opinion,
As a military chaplain you have a duty to aid our service members in the free exercise of their religious beliefs. Accommodating the free exercise of religion is, in fact, your only job. Military chaplains exist to grant our service members access to a church or religious leader of their chosen religion while they live on base or travel overseas.

While the military chaplaincy has unnecessarily expanded and in many cases now provides redundant access to Christian chaplains in areas where private Christian churches are available, the justification for military chaplains nevertheless remains rooted — tenuous though those legal roots may be — in the constitutional principle of free religious exercise. Your call to openly disregard the Constitution is particularly hypocritical, given that the Constitution justifies your existence.
After the show Deb and I did a we bit of digging,

The Hernandez video we spoke of,,,  https://www.youtube.com/embed/xm_qN4ieCr4

Tennessee Temple University 
Is a TRACS accredited school, which IRL means nothing,
The organization was founded in 1979 to "promote the welfare, interests, and development of post-secondary institutions, whose mission is characterized by a distinctly Christian purpose."[3] According to the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), TRACS is a "product of the ICR" and was created "Because of the prejudice against creation-science, outspoken creationist schools" that had "little or no chance of getting recognition through accreditation."[5] TRACS requires all accredited schools to have a statement of faith that affirms "the inerrancy and historicity of the Bible" and "the divine work of non-evolutionary creation including persons in God's image".[6]

Tuesday, May 10, 2016

Show Notes: They are kinda related,,, (Pt 2)

 

Stop Kerri Rivera, autism quacks and abusive "treatments" for autism

NICOL!!

If you remember from part 1, we discussed a general overview of the First Amendment and how it is ONLY speaking of and to governmental entities and their representatives (public vs private sector employment).  The First Amendment has no jurisdiction between private parties, such as the "cases" of Phil Robertson or Andrew Wakefield, although there are certain caveats (ie violations concerning anti-discrimination laws, or what I call faux religious liberty cases,  BUT you have to bear in mind those cases then are no longer 1st Amendment issues even when said violation may be religious in nature). 

You may say whatever you want - again with some caveats (ie yelling fire in a crowded theater) - the gov't can not shut you down although they can place restrictions for public safety (such as safety zones at family planning clinics or a buffer zone at a political rally). 

A private entity may disagree and they may criticize you BUT they do not have to provide a platform for your speech.  Ultimately that is what the Azucar Bakery case was about in Colorado.  Marjorie Silva, the defendant, maintained throughout, "[i]n the same manner we would not … make a discriminatory cake against Christians, we will not make one that discriminates against gays."
Where Phillips went wrong is that he out-right refused a service/product (providing a wedding cake) that he normally provides to any other customer. Where Silva went right, "[i]n the same manner we would not … make a discriminatory cake against Christians, we will not make one that discriminates against gays."

Where Jack went wrong, he assumed Silva would cow-tow to his wishes because he is a Christian and his beliefs are sacrosanct and should never be questioned. Where Silva went right, "[i]n the same manner we would not … make a discriminatory cake against Christians, we will not make one that discriminates against gays."
In a similar vane, it is also why Phil Robertson had no leg to stand on against A&E.  As a private company, A&E had certain standards for employees, in their determination Robertson didn’t meet said standards.  End of story.

In a nut shell that is the situation being faced by Andrew Wakefield; a lying con-man with no moral integrity.  Tribeca is a private entity who chose, after receiving horrible public backlash, not to screen the his film.  Contrary to opinion, the powerful elite had nothing to do with this.  There is no conspiracy.

Although this IS SATIRE,  this article sums up the general sentiment concerning our view of documentaries.

We also learned that the same tenet applies in regards to religion.  The gov't has to be hand off in endorsing a specific religion and that hands off approach has to be across the board.  It has to be equal to all religions.  In other words Christianity and its variants (what we here in the States are most familiar with) can not be given preferential treatment over any other religion.  What is good for the goose, is good for the gander.

That is one of the underlying arguments you will find concerning the SB277 issue in California.  Parents can no longer use religion to exempt a child from the required school vaccines. 
If you remember SB277 eliminated non-medical exemptions for mandated vaccination in regards to schooling.  As I have mentioned, its passing has created a little cottage industry.  A point that Orac notes concerning Dr Bob Sears:  “SB 277 is generally a good law, but it’s definitely not perfect. Perhaps its most glaring weakness is that all that it requires for a child to obtain a medical exemption is a letter from the child’s doctor. In other words, any physician can provide a letter for parents to use to get a vaccine mandate.” [See also:  Now what? Will SB 277 enrich antivaccine doctors? and SB 277 advances, and antivaccine activists lose it (again)]

Remember my bit on MMS?  The MMS protocol is actually part of the Genesis II Church sacraments. Jim Humble made it as such to attempt to bypass the SOCAS issue by injecting religious bullshit.

For example, these are statements within a longer statement by Humble,
I also told him that we have given interviews to CNN, BBC, Sky News and others with none of them reporting what I said so why waste our time. He was persistent about finding out if we cure breast cancer. I finally told him that by the Sacraments of the Genesis II Church we have treated, cured and healed breast cancer. He was appalled that I would say those forbidden words “cure, heal or treat”. Forbidden by the FDA, U.S. Justice system maybe, but not a Church! Maybe the AMA can't say that because they are not set up to “cure” anything but only treat symptoms. I told him that he could see for himself testimonies of many diseases “cured” with the Genesis II Church sacraments. People from all over the world are being “restored to health” with the protocols of our Church. ABC released an article and a two - night coverage of a so-called “investigation” into the “unorthodox underworld” of the Genesis II Church. Here is what was aired.
,,,
As you can see we brought up a different side of the issue that they cannot and will not cover. The only places we have seen our story get out is the alternative media and even many of them are afraid to cover what we do as a Church. The time is now to make a stand against this evil that is destroying our world. This Bible verse sums it up for about who we are really fighting. “For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places”, Ephesians 6:12 King James Bible. Whether you believe the Bible or not those that are well read in history and have their eyes open know this to be truth throughout history.
While Humble is still active in the debacle he created, a more recent news release is telling.  This one is dated December 4, 2015 from Archbishop Mark S. Grenon
We have prepared a Religious Exemption letter to be given to any government or private organization as a statement of our beliefs about vaccines and other issues regarding toxins entering our body, i.e. “our temple”. If anyone needs this letter please contact us at,,,

This statement, was in regards to a woman who wanted to volunteer as a hospice.

To Humble and his ilk, I have this to say, Why the FUCK would you volunteer at a hospice or such without being vaccinated - the elderly, the ill and immune compromised DIE from flu complications, EASILY. Fuck Jim Humble and his cult.

I get personally peeved at this becasue it is attitude such as this that caused my issue with staph/ MRSA.  Which BTW almost derailed my eye surgery 18 months after the fact.

Bishop Kerri Rivera (and Bishop Andreas Kalcker, a oft co-hort) takes it one step further, in her "curing" of autism, with the purging of parasites and intestinal lining (ropeworms) via the ingestion of CLO2 and CLO2 enemas.

https://www.facebook.com/therealcrediblehulk/photos/a.892787380752581.1073741828.892778157420170/1086814234683227/?type=3&theater

Sorry, but not sorry for the gross picture.  This is what the parents are sifting through their child's poop for.  This occurs daily if not more.

Another example, this 2-part tutorial from Kerri Rivera and in it she describes how to make a 3000ppm CLO2 solution:




A far cry from the recommended concentration for treating our water supply.

What I found interesting,,, 

Although Rivera seems to have jumped ship for GcMAF, THIS still appears in relation to Humble and his Genesis II church.  My last foray into this wacky world, about a year ago, the number stood at 163.  So it would appear, though not vocal, Rivera is still considered part of the fold.



Into that mix we have the whole of the AV movement of which Wakefield is a part; a part he fully embraces.


All this got me too thinking in light of the recent Hovind/Tocco video(s) and the current debacle with Wakefield.  (And NO, Wakefield was not exonerated, "To try to argue that a legal ruling such as the one regarding Professor Walker-Smith exonerates Wakefield is an even worse folly than arguing that his being struck off necessarily proves he is a quack. He’s an antivaccine quack based on science; it matters not what the courts say.")  SOCAS hasn't been broached per se, but SOCAS is an issue in the broader context of the AV movement as is the idea of religious freedom in general.  I wonder how much they have learned from the Reich and their throw spaghetti on the wall approach.

You see, some aspects of the alt-med field fall prey to the conspiratorial mind set exemplified by Hovind and the religious batshittery presented by Genesis II.  In fact what scares me is that next on Hovind’s list will be MMS.  He already peddles B-17 as a miracle cancer cure, so MMS would not be to far of a leap.



I guess what is bothersome and why collecting my troubled thoughts so difficult is that I see no end in sight.  I look to people such as Kevin Folta, the SciBabe, Dr David Gorski among many, many others, who have spent years studying this stuff and wonder - what do they really think when a individual such as Hovind or Wakefield (or in Folta’s case Vandana Shiva) make such a mockery out of science.  A field they have spent a lifetime to learn.


In the end I am reminded of what the interesting points John Oliver makes about science and science reporting in the media.
"No! No, no, no, no, no, no, no! In science, you don't just get to cherry pick the parts that justify what you were going to do anyway! That's religion! You're thinking of religion!"

"This is really dangerous! If we start thinking that science is a la carte ... that is what leads people to think that man-made climate change isn't real, or that vaccines cause autism, both of which the scientific consensus is pretty clear on."



Graphics Used: 

Tuesday, May 3, 2016

Show Notes::They are kinda related,,,


Tonight we are going to take a bit of a road trip.   While information gathering for the episodes (part 1 and part 2) concerning Kent Hovind and Mary Tocco, a story began to emerge.  Andrew Wakefield's movie “Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe ” was removed from the Tribeca Film Festival.

Now I am not planning - we all know how that can change - on a another tirade into the anti-vaxx movement (specifically Robert DeNiro or his views).  Wakefield with his fabricated study (thanks to Brian Deer a copy can be found here) along with financial shenanigans have been thoroughly trashed by those better than I.  What is at issue, have Wakefield's First Amendment rights been trampled on?


Brian Deer's available YT video concerning his investigation into Wakefield.
Published on Oct 10, 2014
This is the full version of Brian Deer's November 2004 film on Andrew Wakefield, "MMR: What they didn't tell you."

The award-winning investigation of Wakefield continued for another six years, leading to his erasure as a medical practitioner, and the retraction of research published in the Lancet in 1998 that, upon final scrutiny of the underlying clinical and pathological data, proved to be an elaborate fraud.

"Many people have had articles in the Lancet," Deer commented afterwards. "I've had one out."
It is an issue I was going to address in regards to Phil Robertson and the Duck Dynasty-A&E flap but destiny took me elsewhere.  So today, probably next week, and maybe the week after we will take a look see - were Wakefield's (and Robertson's) rights trampled?

Simple answer is NO.  Simple explanation, neither Tribeca or A&E are considered government agencies.  As we all know, I don't like simple.  Makes for very short diatribes,,,

Of course, the First Amendment only protects against government restriction of artistic expression. It does not apply to the actions of private citizens or businesses.

While government may not shut down an art gallery because it disagrees with the viewpoint reflected in a painting, an art gallery owner can always decline to display a piece of art.

While government may not ban a compact disc because it is offended by the sentiments expressed in a song, a corporation like Wal-Mart can choose not to sell CDs with parental advisory labels.

First though we will have to take in a bit of history.  While it deals with SOCAS, or Separation of Church and State, primarily, there are ramifications in regard to the other part of the First Amendment, that of Free Speech.

This is part of a show that I did while associated with another radio platform.  It was initially geared toward the Pagan community and those that held non-traditional religious views (those that considered their talents a “gift” from god) - which, for all intense purposes, we as atheist also hold; or well, don’t hold.  It was for those that felt themselves "safe" because in their minds they were "Christian enough".  I have revamped it a bit to fit my needs for tonight because the information is valid regardless of religious affiliation.  It is a primer on SOCAS that I tinker with in an effort to make my presentation better.

As I mentioned prior, its relevance will become important in the next couple weeks when I hope to discuss the movie Vaxxed and Andrew Wakefield's expression of persecution and censorship along with the CDC-Thompson debacle. But also it ties into the current election season as well.

SOCAS issues are again (or should I say still) in the spotlight.  As many of you know I follow SOCAS issues pretty close especially concerning the faux "religious liberty" issue in regards to LGBTQI discrimination and the rise of the dominionist/theocratic movement.  As non-believers the implications of SOCAS are quite obvious but what about the so-called liberal or progressive Christians that many within our community like to reach out to?  The interfaith movement,,, How would the issue of SOCAS effect them? It does, and not in a round about fashion, as you may think.

I know many of you have seen some of the more egregious political and religious rhetoric I have posted on my Facebook page and blog from what I call the Reich (doesn't matter really how you label them Moral Majority, Religious Right, Tea Party, GOTP, assholes etc.).  Many pundits, politicians, pulpits AND celebrities have been espousing their rhetoric and a return to what they call the "Biblical/Christian roots" of our Founding Fathers.  The problem is, they have twisted and perverted what the Founders have said, a la David Barton, so that it is hard to know what the original intent was.  (The two Barton books I am most familiar with: The Jefferson Lies: Exposing the Myths You've Always Believed About Thomas Jefferson and The Myth of Separation: What Is the Correct Relationship Between Church and State?)

[See also::   (Re)membering a Christian nation: Christian nationalism, biblical literalism, and the politics of public memory]


I would so like to play this entire clip courtesy of People For the American Way but time constraints will not allow for it.  It is a 7 minute mini documentary entitled "The Religious Right Then and Now" that highlights the Religious Right “near the peak of their power at the 1992 Republican National Convention at the Houston Astrodome. The short film highlights the extreme views of the Religious Right and includes footage of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and numerous right-wing activists: Pat Buchanan, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Ralph Reed, Gary Bauer, Phyllis Schlafly, James Robison, etc.”

Now tell me, how have things changed? 

And just so you get the bigger picture, so to speak, a brief timeline (in the show notes) to highlight the idea/fact that this "movement" is a well thought out and continuing plan taking advantage whenever possible. You have heard me speak of it before - the 15% solution.
The formula they've concocted has been called the "15 per cent solution" by the Christian Coalition. Even in a well attended presidential election, only 15 per cent of eligible voters determine the outcome,,, "We don't have to worry about convincing a majority of Americans to agree with us," Guy Rodgers, the Christian Coalition's national field director declared at the 1991 Road to Victory conference. Most of them are staying home and watching Falcon Crest."

"We don't have to worry about convincing a majority of Americans to agree with us," Guy Rodgers, the Christian Coalition's national field director declared at the 1991 Road to Victory conference. Most of them are staying home and watching Falcon Crest."

In 1992, according to People for the American Way, the liberal constitutional watchdog, extremist Christian candidates racked up a 40 per cent win record in state and local races. And, to the horror of Republicans across the nation, they're dominating a number of state wide Republican Party committees.  "What the Christian right spends a lot of time doing," says Marc Wolin, a moderate Republican who ran unsuccessfully for Congress from San Francisco last year, "is going after obscure party posts. They try to control the party apparatus in each county. We have a lot to fear from these people. They want to set up a theocracy in America."
"They have acquired a very detailed and accurate understanding of how political parties are organized," says Craig Berkman, former chairman of the Republican Party in Oregon:
Parties are very susceptible to being taken over by ideologues because lower party offices have no appeal to the vast majority of our citizenry. Many precincts are represented by no one. If you decide all of a sudden because it's your Christian duty to become a precinct representative, you only need a few votes to get elected. Increasingly, they have the key say so on who will be a delegate at the national convention, and who will write the party platform and nominate the presidential candidate,,,
TIMELINE
[This list is by no means exhaustive but highlight incidents that I feel are important to the Reich.  Pay attention primarily to pre-1995, as that is when the ball began to roll.]
1730-40s First "Great Awakening" (George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards, John Wesley)
1820-40s Second “Great Awakening”
1942 National Association of Evangelicals (NAE)
1st "Modern" Iteration
1960 Coral Ridge Ministry Dr James Kennedy
1961 CBN Launch Pat Robertson
1962 Engel v Vitale (school prayer)
1966 United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB)
1968 Nixon uses the Southern Strategy exploiting racism in the South
1972 Eagle Forum (Phylis Schafly anti-feminism); Free Market Foundation/Liberty Institute
1973 Roe v Wade; Heritage Foundation and American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) - Paul Weyrich; Institutes of Biblical Law - Rousas John Rushdoony
1977 Focus on the Family (James Dobson); American Family Association (Rev. Donald Wildmon)
1979 Moral Majority (Jerry Fallwell); Concerned Women for America (Beverly LaHaye)
2nd "Modern" Iteration
1980  American Coalition for Traditional Values (Timothy LaHaye); Traditional Values Coalition (Rev Louis P. Sheldon); 1981 Schaefer's Christian Manifesto;  Council for National Policy
1983 Family Research Council (James Dobson now Tony Perkins)
1984 School Voucher program first introduced
1986 Operation Rescue now Operation Save America (Randall Terry)
1987 Christian Coalition (Pat Robertson)
1989 Liberty Counsel (Matthew Staver, Liberty University Jerry Fallwell)
1990 American Center for Law and Justice (Pat Robertson); Discovery Institute
1992 Culture War Speech (Pat Buchanan)
This is the first Republican party platform to address sexual preference in some form or another.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iO5_1ps5CAc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pICypNXHKbg
1994 Alliance Defense Fund (Bill Bright Campus Crusade for Christ, Larry Burkett Crown Financial Ministry, James Dobson)
1996 DOMA; Homeschooling included with school voucher program: William Martin’s "With God on Our Side" a companion piece to six-episode PBS documentary of the same name; Fox News launched (founded in 1985)
1997 Pacific Justice Institute
3rd Iteration
1998/99 Wasn't until the Wedge Document that things as we know it today came together
2000 Blackstone Legal Fellowship
2001 911
2004 Born Alive Infants Protection Act
2005 Saddleback Church (Rick Warren) gained national attention; Terry Schiavo case
Manhattan Declaration; Kitzmiller Case
2006 veto of Stem Cell Research by Bush Jr.
2007 National Organization of Marriage NOM (Brian S. Brown PROP 8)
2008 Sarah Palin
The Re-branding 
2009 Rise of the Tea Party Movement
2010 Citizens United v FEC
2012 "War on religion"; Repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell
2014 Hobby Lobby case
2015 Obergefell v. Hodges; Kim Davis Affair
See also:  Wedge Document or Wedge Strategy, Manhattan Declaration, Christian Manifesto

Before we continue, there are two very simplistic points to keep in mind while cruising through this topic.
1] I want y'all to do a bit of a fill-in-the-blank (hypothetically, since I am assuming I am preaching to the choir):  Church/State separation doesn't effect me because I am a  ________ (insert whatever traditional or non-traditional belief system you may practice) 

Now keep that in mind and consider this,,,

2]  Which Bible?  And which form/denomination of Christianity?
There are currently over 41,000 different Christian denominations/organizations worldwide with approximately 1500 different groups within the US    

Altho the exact number of English translations is an unknown, since 1526 when Tyndale's NT began circulating, the number of translation/paraphrases, partial or full, is about 900.  I have actually seen numbers as high 3300+

Do you see where this is leading??

This notion is what drives me bonkers, “they” do not realize that within the dominionists ideology, "they" are not the "right kind of Christian" and read the wrong Bile.  More on that later, maybe,,,  [I am using Ted Cruz as an example as he is the only dominionist left in the presidential race.  Kasich, while still a candidate at the time of this writing is not viable nor is he as hard-core as Cruz.]
Fea maintains that Cruz’s campaign rests on the notion that America was founded as a Christian nation; therefore “restore,” “return to,” and “reclaim” has become Cruz’s special mission. Like his father Rafael, and many culture warriors of the Religious Right, Cruz believes that Christians need to reclaim the various aspects of culture—the media, the entertainment industry, education, government—and take dominion over them.
So what exactly are we talking about here? 

Very simple really, the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which states:  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The part we are most interested in ATM:  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,,,  Keep in mind whom this is speaking of,,,CONGRESS!!  Put another way, the government,,, whether it be local, state or federal.

As part of the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments were ratified on December 15, 1791.   Prior to the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, the Supreme Court generally held that the protections of the Bill of Rights did not apply to state governments. This is why some in the Reich want the 14th Amendment removed.  It is the basis of many civil liberty cases currently before the courts.  By virtue of the "due process clause" of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, most provisions of the Bill of Rights now also apply to the state and local governments.  This is part of the stink concerning the mRFRA of Indiana along with the idea of taking away rights.  It is a foreseeable after effect of the Hobby Lobby ruling.  See also:  Redefining Religious Liberty: The Covert Campaign Against Civil Rights.
As researcher and activist Jay Michaelson shows in this report, a coalition largely made up of Roman Catholic elites and right-wing evangelicals continues its battle to undermine the promise of the Affordable Care Act by pushing for an even broader realm of religious exemptions in the name of defending religious liberty. Michaelson names the key intellectuals, Religious Right organizations, such as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and legal groups, like the Becket Fund, that are working together to advance a discriminatory agenda that would allow employers to put contraception coverage out of reach of their employees.
,,,
To date [March 2013], according to this report, there are 49 pending cases, many represented by the Becket Fund, of companies and nonprofits—including universities—claiming that observing the contraceptive coverage requirement is a violation of their religious liberty.
[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law (Section1)
It wasn't until Everson v Board of Education (1947) that the "establishment clause" was fully incorporated (made to apply against the states).  It was then that the phrase "separation between church and state" as attributed to Thomas Jefferson became the mainstay central to this issue.

[Just a brief note::  While much of the debate concerning the 14th Amendment ATM centers on “birth right citizenship”, it is generally held by some that the equal protection clause was not intended to prohibit discrimination as currently held by the courts.  I’m not going to get into THAT debate ATM, but bear in mind some want the right to discriminate.  And yes it does go back to the Brown opinion of 1947.]

Numerous court cases have been held throughout our history, as far back as 1879, the Court has always looked at our history as a Republic in deciding such cases.  Justice Hugo Black, in the Everson decision, sums up the whole issue very succinctly:
The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining [p16] or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups, and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State." Reynolds v. United States, supra, at 164._
What makes Black’s opinion so powerful, not only does Justice Black rely on Jefferson (letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802):
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State,,,
but also the words of James Madison (Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments), who wrote the First Amendment:
In it, he [referring to Madison] eloquently argued that a true religion did not need the support of law; that no person, either believer or nonbeliever, should be taxed to support a religious institution of any kind; that the best interest of a society required that the minds of men always be wholly free, and that cruel persecutions were the inevitable result of government-established religions.
As you can see this is not a new issue.  It is not some recent atheistic/secular agenda.  It is an issue with a long history in our country.  If you ever have the time you should read Black's opinion, starting around page 8, he gives a wonderful history lesson concerning religious freedoms of our country and the why of our Constitution being the secular document it is.  Contrary to what David Barton and his ilk may have you believe.
Reconstruction is the spark plug behind much of the battle over religion in politics today. The movement’s founder, theologian Rousas John Rushdoony, claimed 20 million followers—a number that includes many who embrace the Reconstruction tenets without having joined any organization. Card-carrying Reconstructionists are few, but their influence is magnified by their leadership in Christian right crusades, from abortion to homeschooling.

Reconstructionists also exert significant clout through front organizations and coalitions with other religious fundamentalists; Baptists, Anglicans, and others have deep theological differences with the movement, but they have made common cause with its leaders in groups such as the National Coalition for Revival. Reconstruction has slowly absorbed, congregation by congregation, the conservative Presbyterian Church in America (not to be confused with the progressive Presbyterian Church [USA]) and has heavily influenced others, notably the Southern Baptists.
The take away for this segment I would like to leave with is this,  there is no gray area where the 1st  Amendment is concerned.  The Founders were quite adamant is regards to SOCAS.  And SOCAS as well as issues of free speech only pertain to the govt.

1] SOCAS is not new
2]  the separation of powers refers to the govt not private individuals or business.  In other words, you can have an opinion, but the 1st and 14th do not protect you from criticism or ramifications
3]  in regards to politics, religious liberty is still a big issue.

So in light of Wakefield crying foul (along with Robertson and Chik-A-Filet drive-through guy), when one looks at the entire 1st Amendment minus the reconstructionist lens, it is fairly pain and simple.

Graphics:
Some stuff on the rise of the Reich

With God on our Side [Video]
God’s Own Party:The Making of the Christian Right

Daniel K. Williams’ briefly reaches back to the 1920s, demonstrating how evangelicals possessed a history of political involvement that manifested itself as G.O.P. partisanship in the late twentieth-century.

What Forster seems to gloss over is the concerted rebranding of the RR around 2000 that began with Bush Jr,
Here is where I have to disagree with Daniel Williams’ groundbreaking new book, God’s Own Party. Williams has collected extensive evidence documenting evangelical activism throughout the last century, upon which I’ve drawn in both parts of this article (along with other sources). But Williams thinks the Religious Right was highly successful; his main thesis is that evangelicals are now essentially in control of the GOP. I agree with David Courtwright that it’s the politicians who have been in the driver’s seat.
Lisa McGirr’s Suburban Warriors: The Origins of the New American Right

Darren Dochuk From Bible Belt to Sun Belt: Plain-Folk Religion, Grassroot Politics, and the Rise of Evangelical Conservatism 

Axel Schäfer Countercultural Conservatives: American Evangelicalism from the Postwar Revival to the New Christian Right 

Moral Minority by David Swartz

28 minute video documenting the birth of the Moral Majority. This video, produced by People for the American Way in 1982, shows actual footage of the politicization of what has become the dominionist movement.

October 11, 2004 video of Joan Bokaer describing the rise of Dominionism in the U.S. government. Joan explains how the Religious Right took over the Republican Party, and how President Bush, along with his Religious Right allies in Congress, are attempting to transform the United States into a Christian nation.