"Least. Welcome. Convert. Ever."

War criminal and former Liberian dictator Charles Taylor is apparently a convert Jew for Jesus:

Q. So he's now a practicing Jew?

A. He's now a Jew. He's practicing Judaism.

Q. Tells us about that? What led him to that?

A. Because of the difficulties, he always wanted to know God in a very diffent and special way. From a very small boy -- because we talk about his childhood a whole lot -- he asked himself questions about Christianity. Too many questions about why certain things happened. And why, this one and that one. Just too many question in Christianity and the whole thing about Christ because he does believe in Christ. When he got to the Hague, he got to know that he really, really wanted to be a Jew. Wanted to convert to Judaism. And that...

Q. Does that mean he has rejected Christianity then? Because that's quite a radical departure.

A. No, no, no he hasn't rejected Christianity. He has always been a Christian. He just decided to become a Jew. He wants to follow the two religions.

Obama in Cairo

h/t Oliver Willis

This video from the White House reminds us just how many Muslim Americans we have. It's a must watch, but I'm sure there will be those on the right who it scares mightily. Today President Obama is giving his big speech to the "Muslim World." Michael Scherer at Time sets the scene in Cairo. The NY Times tells us the goal of the speech. Ben Smith also previews the speech. Bin Ladin is threatened by Obama and thus threatens the U.S. You can watch it live streaming now. Full speech is available here. Mark Ambinder gives highlights here.

Sullivan Explores a Fundamentalist Disconnect

Amy Sullivan does great work over at Time's "Swampland" blog presenting digestible religion journalism for non-believers. Also, everyone once in a while she'll show up on BHTV. She does great work tonight demonstrating the gap between the Vatican and Bill Donohue's version of American Catholic Fundamentalism. The whole piece is included below:

First L'Osservatore Romano, the official Vatican newspaper, ran an article giving Obama's first 100 days a tentative thumbs-up. Then, as conservative Catholics in the U.S. were wringing their hands about the horror of Barack Obama's scheduled appearance at Notre Dame, the newspaper--and the Vatican in general--was conspicuously silent. Then, when the paper did report on Obama's speech, its calm, fairly positive take was in stark contrast to the furious reaction of many conservative Catholics here.

But this takes the cake. In an interview with an Italian newspaper the day after Obama's speech, Giavonni Maria Vian, editor-in-chief of L'Osservatore Romano, seemed to forcefully push back against the view that Obama is a threat to Catholic values and religious freedom. “Obama has not upset the world,” said Vian. “His speech at Notre Dame has been respectful toward every position. He tried to engage the debate stepping out from every ideological position and outside every ‘confrontational mentality.' To this extent his speech is to be appreciated.”

After reaffirming that the Vatican newspaper shares the American bishops' staunch opposition to abortion, Vian went further. "What I want to stress is that yesterday, on this precise and very delicate issue, the President said that the approval of the new law on abortion is not a priority of his administration. The fact that he said that is very reassuring to me. It also underlines my own clear belief: Obama is not a pro-abortion president."

Uh, oh. It sounds like the Vatican newspaper "doesn't understand what it means to be Catholic."

You can follow her, as well as Joe Klein over at Swampland. Together Sullivan and Klein almost make Karen Tumulty tolerable. The feed is still worth following.

Wingnuttery Everywhere

I was pleasantly surprised with Michael Steele truth to power Republican base Mormon comments:

"[R]emember, it was the base that rejected Mitt because of his switch on pro-life, from pro-choice to pro-life. It was the base that rejected Mitt because it had issues with Mormonism. It was the base that rejected Mitch, Mitt, because they thought he was back and forth and waffling on those very economic issues you’re talking about. So, I mean, I hear what you’re saying, but before we even got to a primary vote, the base had made very clear they had issues with Mitt because if they didn’t, he would have defeated John McCain in those primaries in which he lost."

I'm not a Republican, nor am I part of either party's base, but I've been fascinated by the Evangelical movement for sometime, and Steele's comments are backed up with many conversations I had during the primaries.

Continetti doesn't mention Huntsman's Mormonism in his complaints I mentioned yesterday, but then again, Continetti is not part of the GOP base. His quest for party purity isn't based on religion affiliation. Continetti actually said something that made me a at least a little bit proud:

"The coalition that would nominate such a man (or woman!) exists, sure. In the Democratic party. Not the GOP."

That was until Oliver Willis brought this John Aravosis post to my attention:

"It doesn't matter what Huntsman now tells us. The Mormons have a tenet in their faith called "lying for the lord." It means they outright lie when asked about their church, in order to protect and promote their church. And as we've seen with their treatment of the Holocaust victims, and their absurd excuse for why they secretly baptized President Obama's mother only last year, in matters concerning their faith, they have shown that you cannot trust them at their word. Their promises come second to their faith.

If Jon Hunstman is required by God to secretly help the Mormons infiltrate China - and he is - then that is what Jon Huntsman will do as our next Ambassador to China. You can bet on it. Pity the poor Chinese. They have no idea what's about to happen to them."

These conspiratorial ideas are common place on the extremes of both parties. Aravosis is fairly mainstream in the liberal blogosphere. It's disappointing to see this from what I'd hoped would be the more tolerant edge of political discourse. Hunstman's dedication to service is tried and true. More should expected out of liberal bloggers. These are the things we'd come to expect from birthers.

h/t Oliver Willis
----------------
Now playing: Louderbach - autumn

Republicans Stuck in 1993

Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe is going to filibuster the confirmation vote of Judge David Hamilton over concerns he's not anti-Muslim while being anti-Christian. Newt Gingrich did an interview with Christianity Today, where he said more of this nonsense:

You have Obama nominating Judge Hamilton, who said in her ruling that saying the words Jesus Christ in a prayer is a sign of inappropriate behavior, but saying Allah would be OK. You'll find most Republican senators voting against a judge who is confused about whether you can say Jesus Christ in a prayer, particularly one who is pro-Muslim being able to say Allah.

Michael Tomasky, over at the Guardian, does an excellent take down on this lunacy:

So here's where the lie comes in. Hamilton did indeed rule that Jesus Christ must not be mentioned in legislative prayers. But what did he say about Allah? It practically goes without saying that the decision doesn't so much as mention Allah. So this is what his wing-nut critics are doing: They're using the fact that he proscribes mentions of Jesus but does not specifically proscribe mentions of Allah to assert that he thinks mentions of Allah would be perfectly, as it were, kosher.

Please read the rest, if you're interested in why the current GOP is a geographically isolated party.
----------------
Now playing: Department of Eagles - on glaze

Faith in Politics

Faith and flaunting your faith is important to securing the Republican presidential nomination. If by some fluke, the voters select a nominee that doesn't live up to this standard, we get stuck with a wackjob like Palin as the VP. in my three years in Minneapolis, Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty was never one to talk up the roll of his faith in governance. Not much ever got done under Pawlenty's watch. He was constantly fighting with the the Democrat dominated legislature. His budget war shut down the state my first weekend in Minnesota, leaving 9,000 people unemployed briefly. But a recent interview with One News Now leaves nothing to question, Pawlenty is working on the 2004 primary season already, despite his statement in the interview that he's concentrating on Minnesota.

Money quote:

"If you go back and look at why and how this country was founded, people who envisioned America and the American dream first and foremost said we need to acknowledge and be grateful to God," the governor stated. "And it's reflected in our founding documents; it should be reflected in our daily lives, our political values, our political principles, and our own behavior.

"It all starts with that," he emphasized. "That is the foundation upon which we build our house -- literally and figuratively."

Last night Rachel Maddow had him on. A Republican doesn't go on Maddow unless they're trying to up their profile. Pawlenty is boring. Nothing he is going to say or do is going to change that. Last fall, damn, I can't find the poll, but a Minnesota poll showed McCain doing worse with Pawlenty on the ticket. I wish him luck. He seems like a nice enough guy. How Minnesota is that of me to say? Heh
----------------
Now playing: A-Trak - Infinity+1