"any faith, on any side of any cause, for any reason."

From the GLAAD blog:

On the Dec. 9 edition of KPFA’s “The Morning Show,” host Aimee Allison spoke with Seamus Hasson, founder and chairman of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, and the Rev. Susan Russell, priest at All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena.

The segment centered around a full-page advertisement run by the Becket Fund in the Dec. 5, 2008 edition of The New York Times. The ad sparked controversy for its unsubstantiated and inaccurate claims about supposed “violence and intimidation” against religious groups since the passage of Proposition 8.

Aimee Allison (KPFA Morning Show Co-Host): So, Rev. Russell was commenting, there may be a few individuals, but not a movement. Seamus Hasson, your response to that: if there are individuals, why are anti-Prop 8 movement folks being painted with that broad brush?

Seamus Hasson: Well, whether it’s an organized movement like Al Qaeda or whether it’s the Al Qaeda-like, um, inspired acts of terrorism elsewhere, people are right to be concerned about, um, radical Islamist violence-

And yet it was the Becket Fund -- of which Seamus Hasson is founder and chairman -- who just the other day had this to say in the slanderous NoMobVeto NYT ad:

"Furthermore, beginning today, we commit ourselves to opposing and publicly shaming anyone who resorts to the rhetoric of anti-religious bigotry - against any faith, on any side of any cause, for any reason."

Even Al-Qaeda is an islamist movement, so shouldn't he be publically shaming himself right about now - just to round out the cycle of two-faced double speak?

A couple of shorts. "Darwinism" / Dominitionsim

This first one is a short read, but a worthy one I think.

Creationists and ID proponents often make it a point to characterize anyone who believes in evolution as an atheist.

As this article points out, the attempt to label evolution as being anyting "Darwinistic," or more specifically "Darwinian" or "Darwinism." It's a code speak subtle attempt to portray that belief-in-evolution as being religious in nature - BUT IN THE ATTEMPT TO PORTRAY THAT RELIGION as being on par with the supposed "atheist religion" of science:

In the US, "Darwinism" is about political power. Evolution is not.

Dr. Kate correctly pointed out recently on the Thoughts From Kansas blog:

Creationists insist on calling [evolution] "Darwinism." If they can get enough people to think that science is a religion, then they can argue that their religion ought to get as much time in the science classroom as "our" religion does.

More information here, and especially here as to how evolution has already transcended so called "Darwinism.":

The test of time

Q: How do you answer the charge that evolution has never been tested?

Miller: Evolution is tested every day in the laboratory, and it's tested every day in the field. I can't think of a single scientific theory that has been more controversial than evolution, and when theories are controversial, people devise tests to see if they're right. Evolution has been tested continuously for almost 150 years and not a single observation, not a single experimental result, has ever emerged in 150 years that contradicts the general outlines of the theory of evolution.

Any theory that can stand up to 150 years of continuous testing is a pretty darn good theory. We use evolution to develop drugs. We use evolution to develop vaccines. We use evolution to manage wildlife. We use evolution to interpret our own genome. Every one of these uses of evolution is a test, because if the use turns out to be inadequate, we would then go back and question the very idea of evolution itself. But evolution has turned out to be such a powerful, productive, and hardworking theory that it's survived that test of time.

Just something to keep an eye out for in conversations. ~~~~~Also, an excellent article here by Mel Seesholtz (Jul 24, 2008) on dominionism. If you're unnfamiliar with the threat of dominionism, or need a refresher, it's a thorough read and replete with quotes and hyperlinks.

A couple of my favorites parts:

“Protect traditional marriage.” What does “protect” mean? If gay and lesbian couples marry, will heterosexual couples stop? If that were the case, then prohibiting same-sex marriage would “protect” heterosexual marriage. But that is not the case. Heterosexual couples still marry in Massachusetts and California. In fact, heterosexual marriage in those states has been totally unaffected by marriage equality. So one has to conclude that by “protect” Dominionists mean reserve a civil right to a civil institution for some people and deny it to others: the definition of discrimination.

And:

From Chris Hedges’ American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America: “Dominionism is a theocratic sect with its roots in a radical Calvinism. . . . It teaches that American Christians have been mandated by God to make America a Christian state. . . . America becomes, in this militant Biblicism, an agent of God, and all political and intellectual opponents of America’s Christian leaders are viewed, quite simply, as agents of Satan.

“Under Christian dominionism, America will no longer be a sinful and fallen nation but one in which the 10 Commandments form the basis of our legal system, and the media and the government proclaim the Good News to one and all. Labor unions, civil-rights laws and public schools will be abolished. Women will be removed from the workforce to stay at home, and all those deemed insufficiently Christian will be denied citizenship. . . .

“The death penalty is to be imposed not only for offenses such as rape, kidnapping and murder, but also for adultery, blasphemy, homosexuality, astrology, incest, striking a parent, incorrigible juvenile delinquency, and, in the case of women, ‘unchastity before marriage.’ . . .

If interested, more info on dominionism here at Religious Tolerance.