Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Nerds and geeks Previous entry: Okay…

Fundie Rev. Rob Schenck anoints Sotomayor Senate hearing room with oil

Back in 2006 I blogged about Rev. Rob Schenck’s freakshow (”Holy greasing of the wheel, er, ass for the Alito hearings”). As reported in the WSJ at the time:

Capitol Hill police barred them from entering the room to continue what they called a consecration service. But in a bit of one-upsmanship, the three announced that they had let themselves in a day earlier, touching holy oil to the seats where Judge Alito, the senators, witnesses, Senate staffers and the press will sit, and praying for each of the 13 committee members by name.

“We did adequately apply oil to all the seats,” said the Rev. Rob Schenck, who identified himself as an evangelical Christian and as president of the National Clergy Council in Washington.

Here we go with the batsh*ttery again…From David Brody of CBN News:

The Christian group “Faith and Action in the Nation’s Capitol” has made its way to Capitol Hill and Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor might be interested in what they did. They blessed the doors of Senate Hart Building Room 216 with prayer and oil because they believe this will be the room most likely used for her confirmation hearing which begins July 13th.

Read Schenck’s letter about his little religious excursion to the Capitol below the fold.

Dear,

You probably heard the news that US Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy has set the start date for confirmation hearings surrounding Judge Sonia Sotomayor as President Obama’s nominee to the United States Supreme Court. They will begin Monday, July 13, and probably last through that week. I waited for that announcement before making one of my own:

A firm foundation of prayer has been laid for this confirmation process. Wednesday morning, June 3, about 8:00, I went to the US Senate Hart Building across the street from our ministry center where the last two Supreme Court nomination hearings took place. Once there, I proceeded to Committee Room 216, the very same chamber where we have held numerous prayer and worship services over the years. This will most likely be the venue for the Senate hearing.

I went to the hearing room doors, and, following biblical and long-held Christian traditions, anointed them with oil as a symbol of consecration, or a setting apart for God’s purpose. In respect for Judge Sotomayor’s strong Catholic background, I used oil specially formulated for this purpose. It was also blessed by a Catholic priest at the St. Francis Monastery here in Washington, DC.

As I prayed, I touched the doors in three spots, making the sign of the cross. I prayed for God to superintend over the entire confirmation process and mark them with truth because Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth and the life,” and He prayed to His Father, saying, “Thy Word is Truth.” Of course, in the end, we always pray that God’s will be done.

There is so much we can do as part of this enormously consequential exercise, including letting our senators know how we feel about this nomination. Nothing, though, is as important as prayer. I invite you to join me in praying as often as you can during the entire hearing process beginning Monday morning, July 13.

I will keep you informed.

Your missionary to Capitol Hill,

Rev. Rob Schenck
President
Faith and Action in the Nation’s Capital

Hat tip, Sam M.

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Pam Spaulding on 12:36 PM • (71) Comments

Note to domestic terrorists: just wear a suit with a cross on the lapel and you can get in anywhere.

Comment #1: paul  on  06/10  at  12:43 PM

Is it just me or does it look like Reverend Rob is trying to pass either a kidney stone or a particularly reluctant dump in the above photo?

Comment #2: Slackejawea  on  06/10  at  12:43 PM

Ah, where’s the chicken blood, shouldn’t there be some chicken blood… it sounds like a santeria ritual.  Crazy fundies.

Comment #3: PurpleGirl  on  06/10  at  12:55 PM

So what stopped him from peeing on everything? If you’re going to claim an area, best to stick with the most ancient rituals.

Comment #4: histro-geek  on  06/10  at  12:57 PM

Well, damn it.  Now the committee members’ heads will spin around until someone shouts out “The power of Christ compels you!”

Comment #5: tannenburg  on  06/10  at  12:57 PM

Hmmm. I’m sure we can find a religion that likes to sacrifice goats - where’s the BBQ room? Or perhaps we can go back to Inca or Mayan traditions and offer a heart-still-beating heart of a sacrificial victim - since he’s sooo religious, perhaps Mr. Schenk would like to volunteer?

Comment #6: phylosopher  on  06/10  at  12:59 PM

There is an obvious shortage of squirrel cages.

Comment #7: Magis  on  06/10  at  01:00 PM

luther, zwingli, & calvin are spinning in their graves at such an act of papist idolatry

I guess historical sectarian differences are meaningless now

Comment #8: wapsie  on  06/10  at  01:03 PM

Nothing, though, is as important as prayer.

Well… this is almost sort of true if you read it right.

Comment #9: kaninchen  on  06/10  at  01:05 PM

What are they praying for? That she breaks her other ankle?

Comment #10: DC Fem  on  06/10  at  01:14 PM

I’m sure we can find a religion that likes to sacrifice goats - where’s the BBQ room?

Ahhh, my favourite part of the confirmation hearings: roti time!

And Magis made me laugh, too.

Comment #11: seeker6079  on  06/10  at  01:16 PM

This batshit crazy isn’t new.  IIRC, David Brock and John Ashcroft anointed Clarence Thomas with Wesson right before his confirmation hearings.

Comment #12: ummeli  on  06/10  at  01:17 PM

And please remember:

White christian minister who supports the government: wanders in and out of Congress as he pleases.

Black christian minister who doesn’t support the government: attacked and injured by the cops.
http://seeker6079.blogspot.com/2007/09/arrest-of-rev.html

Comment #13: seeker6079  on  06/10  at  01:20 PM

Did I miss something or do we no longer, at least at face value, have seperation of church and state? Can I go consecrate the oval office in the name of FSM? His noodley appendage needs to bless that room.

Comment #15: UltraMagnus  on  06/10  at  01:21 PM

I feel for the cleaning staff.  Oil can be a real pain to clean up.

Comment #16: Ismone  on  06/10  at  01:27 PM

Mostly harmless.  It sounds more like an attempt by the Pope to crown Charlemagne - to coopt a non-religious proceeding with religious ritual hoodooo - than it does any attempt to wish ill on anybody.

Comment #17: Ms Kate  on  06/10  at  01:27 PM

This batshit crazy isn’t new.  IIRC, David Brock and John Ashcroft anointed Clarence Thomas with Wesson right before his confirmation hearings.

Was this some sort of male bonding thing we really don’t want to know more about?

Comment #18: Ms Kate  on  06/10  at  01:28 PM

Uh, seeker, do you perhaps have a different definition of “supports the government” since november?

Comment #19: paul  on  06/10  at  01:33 PM

Actually, I was just daydreaming about someone slipping on the oil and suing the aforementioned minister for damages.  That’d be fun.

Comment #20: tannenburg  on  06/10  at  01:35 PM

I’m with seeker6079.  I don’t care that he anointed the room with oil.  I care that he got into the room at all.  Is that normal? The Hart Building isn’t exactly the Capitol but you’d think they would have some security.

Comment #21: carovee  on  06/10  at  01:36 PM

Ms Kate:
Don’t you think that it operates in favour of the secularists?  Come hearing day each and every person of conquence will have literally wiped their asses with this supposed blessing.

Comment #22: seeker6079  on  06/10  at  01:38 PM

And…
we don’t want to forget that this charlatan may be lying.  I know that fund-seeking attention whore clergymen NEVER distort the truth .... but he could be the first!

Comment #23: seeker6079  on  06/10  at  01:39 PM

So, even after anthrax attacks, some preacher can still just walk into the Senate office building and smear doors with some substance he has brought in with him?  Great.

Also, and I concede I may be wrong, wouldn’t it take four points to denote a cross?
Three points makes a triangle.

Comment #24: gravitybear  on  06/10  at  01:46 PM

carovee says: I’m with seeker6079.  I don’t care that he anointed the room with oil.  I care that he got into the room at all.  Is that normal? The Hart Building isn’t exactly the Capitol but you’d think they would have some security.

Where’s Homeland Security?  These folks could be planting bombs or some kind of toxic substances in the meeting room.  This is ridiculous!

Comment #25: CParis  on  06/10  at  01:48 PM

The three points are symbolic of the Christian three-in-one god.  Which I suppose makes it good for cleaning knives and keeping them from rusting.

Comment #26: kaninchen  on  06/10  at  01:49 PM

Did I miss something or do we no longer, at least at face value, have seperation of church and state? Can I go consecrate the oval office in the name of FSM? His noodley appendage needs to bless that room.
UltraMagnus on 06/10 at 12:21 PM


NO, no, no at least not on the same night we BBQ the goat too much tomato upsets the feng shui.  Unless you want to go sauceless?  Or we could make some goat bacon and do carbonara?

Comment #27: phylosopher  on  06/10  at  01:57 PM

Unless you want to go sauceless?

The scene:
A dimly lit hall.  Men and women, their faces hidden by robes with hoods.

“Then, bretheren, it is agreed that phylosopher is a BLASPHEMER!  Bring forth the Potent Potable Potpourri of Penitence!

Comment #28: seeker6079  on  06/10  at  02:06 PM

“where’s the chicken blood”

its lamb’s blood and if TV has taught me anything, and it hasn’t, it should be smeared on the door frame.

Comment #29: Mark  on  06/10  at  02:10 PM

Schenck may otherwise be a dangerous fundie, but this particular thing seems like a harmless exercise in eccentricity to me. At worst, it’s like one of those goofy bouncing-huddle things football players do before a game. Shouldn’t we be concentrating on the actual dangerous things Schenck may or may not be doing?

Comment #30: Jeff  on  06/10  at  02:18 PM

Batshit crazy, but I want some Potent Potable Potpourri of Penitence!

Comment #31: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  06/10  at  02:25 PM

Um, I used to work down the hall from that room, and security was pretty tight, and that was before the 9/11 new security measures. And the hearing rooms aren’t just left open for people to wander in and out of. Also, isn’t there csome sort of statute regarding destruction and defacing federal property? Because, regardless of your view or religion, thats exactly what he did. I’m thinking the Capitol police need to aprehend this delinquent.

Comment #32: Awkward  on  06/10  at  02:34 PM

The saddest thing isn’t particularly that they are doing this, though that is sad.

You just know that if for some reason Sotomayor is not confirmed, they will declare that it is God’s victory and that their prayers made it happen, but if she is confirmed, they will not be prepared to say that THAT is God’s will and everyone should therefore support her.

Comment #33: Lymis  on  06/10  at  02:36 PM

Well, after reading Awkward’s post I think seeker is right again.  This is probably one big lie.  Or maybe its like when I tell myself I should start the oven and then later I mistakenly recall that I did turn on the oven?  Memory can be tricky that way.

Comment #34: carovee  on  06/10  at  02:40 PM

Well, god damn it. I really liked that pair of pants. Now they have this big oil stain on the butt.

Comment #35: cycles  on  06/10  at  02:43 PM

[T]hey will not be prepared to say that THAT is God’s will and everyone should therefore support her.

Well of course not, Lymis!  God’s will coincides remarkably well with their own.  Anything that happens they don’t like is Satan’s infernal work.

Comment #36: kaninchen  on  06/10  at  02:53 PM

As someone once said, “I’ll pray for you” is the Christian way of saying “fuck you.”

Comment #37: Bitter Scribe  on  06/10  at  02:54 PM

The evangelicals say they use oil to anoint chamber doors and seats and themselves, but they use the same substance the younger boy in the movie ‘The Squid and the Whale’ used to anoint library books.

Comment #38: mnsr  on  06/10  at  03:00 PM

This batshit crazy isn’t new.  IIRC, David Brock and John Ashcroft anointed Clarence Thomas with Wesson right before his confirmation hearings.

Was this some sort of male bonding thing we really don’t want to know more about?

I’m going to respectfully decline to answer.  It’s for your own good, Ms. Kate.

Comment #39: ummeli  on  06/10  at  03:03 PM

They might be using oil now, but I’m thinking what the loonies would really like is a little more like this...

Comment #40: MikeEss  on  06/10  at  03:42 PM

IIRC, David Brock and John Ashcroft anointed Clarence Thomas with Wesson

Uh oh.  Does Smith know?

Comment #41: seeker6079  on  06/10  at  03:43 PM

Any chance of releasing a press release claiming that while Schenck and crew were busy screwing around in Wishington, we anointed his church with the menstrual blood of unbaptised Wiccans or something, dedicating the land to Ba’al?

Comment #42: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  06/10  at  03:45 PM

BTW, if you’re going to engage in mindless bigotry and violence, what better place to do so than the Holocaust Museum...

Comment #43: MikeEss  on  06/10  at  03:48 PM

BTW, if you’re going to engage in mindless bigotry and violence, what better place to do so than the Holocaust Museum…

MikeEss

I have pictures of the Phelps group protesting there from last month’s visit.

DC Police were not amused I was laughing at the crazies and their “God Hates Jews” signs.
That’s probably the reason why.
:o

Comment #44: cynickal  on  06/10  at  04:05 PM

How much did they pay a Catholic priest for the Holy Oil? Or do these silly prods think waving a snake over a bottle of Crisco makes it “holy”.

Comment #45: The Pale Scot  on  06/10  at  04:13 PM

If he says he sneaked into the room and smeared some kind of liquid on the seats, we should take him at his word: send in a Hazmat team and bill his group for the cost.

You know, when I was that (mental) age, we put wads of chewing gum on people’s chair seats….

Comment #46: Dr. Psycho  on  06/10  at  04:17 PM

It would be OK if he anointed his own property, but it’s not good to go into a federal building and just smear things with what people hope is olive oil.

Comment #47: shannon  on  06/10  at  05:07 PM

ROFL.. It reminds me of how fundies prayed non stop for it to rain in the 2008 Democratic Convention and we got sunny days, while the Republicans got a hurricane on theirs :p

I wouldn’t worry much. I’m sure this nut oiled some polling places and did prayer vigils on Nov 2008 and we all know how well that worked for them!

Comment #48: Renmiri  on  06/10  at  05:13 PM

Dr. Psycho says: If he says he sneaked into the room and smeared some kind of liquid on the seats, we should take him at his word: send in a Hazmat team and bill his group for the cost.

I agree.  This is not a subject for humor.  If a bunch of “brown people” broadcast that they snuck into a Federal office building and smeared “holy oil” all over furniture and doors, you can bet the FBI would be busting down their doors and dragging them off as terrorists.

Comment #49: CParis  on  06/10  at  05:26 PM

Crisco, Pale Scot. John Ashcroft used Crisco when he self-anointed for governor or senator. Catholics are teh devel to a lot of these Protestant fundies.

Comment #50: NancyP  on  06/10  at  08:57 PM

Why not oil the office chair hinges with a little 3-in-1? At least the squeaking would stop.

Comment #51: NancyP  on  06/10  at  08:58 PM

Would someone mind explaining to me what is actually so wrong with this that it provokes this much hate? I mean, assuming he’s sneaking into either a building or an area of a building where he doesn’t have permission to be, I can get trespassing = wrong. I can also see putting oil on shit = damaging federal property = bad, but a lot of the hate seems to be based on the idea that Christian = domestic terrorist and directed at the idea that he’s praying for the proceedings, which, I don’t see how that hurts anyone or anything. All of it together is kind of on the weird side, but I don’t know why this by itself is offensive.*
Granted, I don’t pay attention to this sort of thing, so I don’t know if he or the people he claims to represent have a history of doing hateful things. Does he? Has he made racist comments before? And even if he actually does (which is not to excuse that behavior), this act by itself seems a little weird, misdemeanor illegal (trespassing, etc), but basically harmless.Why does it even matter? I mean, sure, hate on the guy if he’s an ass, hate on his actions if his actions are dick moves to make, but hating on Christianity because we have crazies (who are very loud, very crazy, and very hostile) too makes it needlessly hard on the Christians who aren’t crazy or hostile.

@ Bitter Scribe:
Also, for the record, as a Christian, “I’ll pray for you” often only means “I’ll pray for you” as in “I hope your cold goes away” or “I hope you don’t get lost on the way to Chicago” or “I know you’re having a tough time at work right now” and I will pray about that stuff. While I don’t doubt that “I’ll pray for you” has been used to mean “Fuck off, I’ve got the moral high ground, and I hope you die painfully,” I think it’s pretty unfair to demonize all Christians that way. Honestly, I’ve never even heard the Christians I know use it in that way, and I know I haven’t. If I want to tell someone to fuck off, I tell them to fuck off.

*disclaimer, i also didn’t watch the video, so if he says something douchy in it, please, just point that out.

Comment #52: nikki  on  06/10  at  09:06 PM

Uh, no,  nikki.  First of all, nobody hates him here, nor has there been hateful commentary.  Calling somebody out for being a privileged douche is not hate.  Commenting on his behaviour is not hate.  Your use of the word shows that you have no clue what it means but are reading off the standard american christian whiner card that defines “hate” as “I have to hear something negative about my faith”.  (“Demonize”.  Yeesh.  Hyberbolize much?)

Further:
Trespassing = illegal.
Trespassing = security threat.
Foreign material on chairs = vandalism.
Foreign material on chairs = hazmat threat.

All of the above performed by white Christian Minister (who has done this before) ... yet no charges.  You can follow through the links I posted above showing what happens to uppity darkie ministers who (gasp!) want to sit in on a committee hearing.  You’re kind of missing the point that he is getting a pass on this when others would be and have been arrested.  You’re missing the point that if a Muslim man had done this he’d be sitting in a tiny cell at the FBI, without bail.  “Privilege” is a concept that just passed you by, isn’t it?

That is leaving aside the more moral objection that this is a secular institution performing a secular duty under a Constitution which explicitly separates church and state.  I can’t see you saying “what’s the big” if any of we atheists here snuck into a church and oiled up the seats with quotes from Darwin.

And why aren’t you over on his site calling him crazy?  You seem comfortable enough with it here.

Comment #53: seeker6079  on  06/10  at  09:24 PM

@seeker6079. I’m sorry for the length of this. I wanted to be clear in my responses to you.

See, I was asking what the problem was, and yes, I agree with you. Trespassing is illegal. Trespassing is a security threat. Vandalism is illegal too, and god whatever knows what he left on the seats could be dangerous. I don’t think he should be doing that. I don’t think he should get away with that. I do think he should be arrested for it, or whatever it is you get for trespassing and vandalism and security threats. I don’t think that if someone of another faith did the same thing there should be more consequences, nor do I think that if someone of another race wants to be present during governmental proceedings they should be barred from them, and certainly not attacked for it. Forgive me if it didn’t seem to me that most of the comments were addressing the fact that he’s done it before and gotten away with it, and seems to be getting away with it this time, and will probably do it again and get another free card. It was a lot of cracks about sacrificing chickens and sheep, and the occasional comment I found to be hostile to Christians in general. If the primary objection is the illegality and the fact that nothing’s been done about it, then thank you for explaining, because I didn’t get that from the comments myself.
I would like to point out that I didn’t condone illegal activity in my comment, or at least, I wasn’t trying to. If I didn’t make myself clear there, I’m sorry about that, I’ll try harder in the future, but I wasn’t thinking about my phrasing there too hard because it wasn’t the question I was trying to ask.

Actually, I would say ‘what’s the big?’ if atheists snuck into a church and left quotes of darwin on the seats. I don’t really see how it matters, and I don’t think it’s a big deal.
What might be a slightly better analogy is if another other religious group did something similar, showing up at government sites to pray about proceedings, or to light a stick of incense or whatever. And I actually don’t see a problem with that either. I don’t think that praying over the room actually does anything, is the thing. Separation of church and state is a very good thing, in my mind. I would be upset if any of the people on the actual commission where doing this, because they shouldn’t be. That’s not their job, and it’s outside the bounds of their authority. I would be upset, and am upset, when a religious figure tells his or her congregation to vote a certain way, or otherwise tries to use their influence over a religious community for political gain. I just don’t see this as the same interference.

On the other hand, I would say that language saying ‘if domestic terrorists want to break in to buildings all they need to do is wear a cross on their lapel’ is implying that Christians are, by default, domestic terrorists. Nor do I think that the assumption that they’re praying that Sotomayer breaks her other ankle is anything but biased. I’m not saying they’re not. As you said, as someone with a record of sneaking around places he’s not supposed to be, his intentions probably aren’t that good, but I didn’t see anything from his written statement that implies that he’s trying to hurt people in this instance. I also do find ‘I’ll pray for you’ is the Christian version of ‘Fuck you’ to actually be hateful, and I wouldn’t mind hearing an explanation about how it’s not.

Comment #54: nikki  on  06/10  at  11:20 PM

@seeker6079

Hate on him if he’s an ass, by all means. If he pulls a dick move, feel free to call him out on it. I do realize that people professing to be Christian get unfair advantages in this country. I don’t think that’s right, and I do think people have to actively try to change it for it actually, you know, change. After a while, you see a lot of comments that talk about all Christians, everywhere negatively in the context of actions and people who are truly reprehensible and call themselves christian. After a while of seeing that, you start noticing a conflation of ‘christian’ with ‘bigot who does hateful things’. I’m not saying that there aren’t people who fit that description, There are, and they don’t make much of an effort to hide it. I’m just saying that there are also people who do not fit that description, people for whom one is not the other and that does seem to be forgotten often. If you think I’m being overly sensitive to that, fine. Feel free to point that out. I’ve spent a long time being told by other people what I ‘must’ believe as a Christian, and that gets old after a while. I probably am overly sensitive to suggestions that some Christians are bad, therefore all Christians are bad. If you think I didn’t ask my question respectfully, please tell me how I didn’t, because I really wasn’t trying to be disrespectful to anyone. If you think it’s simply a matter of my privilege speaking, also fine, and thank you for bringing it up. Believe it or not, I do actually think about the ways I’m privileged a lot and try not to take advantage of a system that is often in my favour at others’ expense. That doesn’t mean I always do a good job at it, but I am trying (which also doesn’t excuse me when I fail). If you think it’s a matter (tied to privilege) of my being unable to stand the thought that Christians do bad things too, though, I don’t think you’ve been listening very well, because I don’t believe I said that at all, while I do believe I acknowledged that Christians can be asses—and dangerous asses—too.

I asked this question here because I’ve been following this blog for a while, and people make good points, and often discuss things reasonably, and I was sincerely curious about why people reacted with anger rather than shrugging and ignoring it. I didn’t see what the big deal was, and I wanted someone to help me understand that. From what you’ve explained to me (in a way I understood) is that he can get away with criminal acts probably because he’s a white Christian man, which isn’t cool. So thank you for helping me with that.
I’m not at his site calling him crazy, because, quite frankly, I don’t think it would do anything. He’s not going to listen to me. The people who go there to agree with him and applaud him aren’t going to listen to me. And the people who go there to tell him he’s crazy already agree with me, so there doesn’t seem to be a point in that either. And really, he kind of leaves a bad taste in my mouth, so I’d prefer to keep my exposure to a minimum.

Comment #55: nikki  on  06/10  at  11:20 PM

“It was a lot of cracks about sacrificing chickens and sheep, and the occasional comment I found to be hostile to Christians in general.”

You are going over old ground, here, nikki.  The oddities religious ritual when viewed from somebody who doesn’t subscribe to religious belief simply look daft.  Sorry, but it’s so.  Religion, though, gets a pass on these things, as if nonbelievers are somehow discourteous in noting that, say, bowing to a notional point on a compass, or being smudged with ashes or whatever, at the command of a sky being seems odd on the surface and worthy of mockery.  The fact that Faith won’t even be teased without going into a huge sulk AND demanding that the teasing stop AND doing so within a cultural context which calls any such teasing rudeness is a fairly good measure of just how privileged yet fragile Faith is.

Comment #56: seeker6079  on  06/10  at  11:28 PM

seeker6079, my point there wasn’t to say that anointing things with oil makes sense, i was trying to explain why i missed what you explained as the main point of the post. I wasn’t even saying that I thought the sacrificing animals jokes offensive, or that other people need to subscribe to any religion. I was saying that I missed a point partially because not many comments came out and said that. I’m not saying they had to. Obviously, other commenters understood the point of the post better than I did, so they didn’t feel the need to explain it. It’s my bad for not getting it, which is why I asked for the clarification that you very helpfully provided.

Comment #57: nikki  on  06/10  at  11:40 PM

MAn, if you are going to be that balanced and polite it’s gonna be awfully hard to be snarky about this!

Comment #58: seeker6079  on  06/11  at  01:15 AM

Nikki;

Here is my take:
i get that you are trying really hard to be polite, and understand this.
in this case, though, i think you are trying to understand the wrong thing…

everything “hateful” being said (chicken blood, sacrifices, etc) is A) humorous mocking B) to make the point that Christian ritual is no less bizzare than other ritual C) to point out that *other* religions don’t get away with thrusting their beliefs on either the government or the people, so why does (the white flavor of) Christianity?

as a non-christian who grew up non-christian and has heard just about every offensive thing one can think of from Christians in the Christian mind-set (things like “enjoy Hell”, “The Devil owns you”, “I’ll pray for you [to either convert or go away]”, “If you don’t love Jesus you are evil and/or worship Satan”, “you sacrifice kittens and infants”, etc., etc., etc…), i really really resent it every time some random Christian “Priest” goes around and gets his Christianity all over my secular government.
do i think people have the right to freedom of religion, including a religion that damns me to Hell no matter what i do?
yes
do i believe that *anyone* has the right to force that religions, or specific rituals thereof, on anyone else?
no. HELL no.

and that is what this guy did - he FORCEBLY and ILLEGALLY performed a religious ritual on the entire country. (and, yes, thats what he did - he performed a religious ritual - the annointing of a specific chamber that he thinks will be hosting a specific political event that will effect the entire country.) he performed a religious ritual with the intent of controlling, or at least swaying, the political process.
i have, YET AGAIN, be forced to partake of a Christian ritual. not in person, i grant (i get actually angry when random Christians show up and bless my house, which happens, and i call the police. i am not angry here, just annoyed) but been subjected to it against my will all the same. if i showed up and wanted to bless that room, there is no way at *all* that i will even be able to enter the buildig. just won’t happen. neither would a Muslim, or a Hindu, or a Taoist. so he is getting away with not just the criminal crimes of tresspassing, etc, but *also* the huge crime of forcing his religion on every American who doesn’t follow it.

i get that Christian, as a whole, are not inherently bad, just as *no* people are inherently bad. i get that just because some Christians do things that are wrong, illegal or whatever, doesn’t mean that *all* Christians do.
but until i stop hearing shit like “Muslims are terrorists!” and “Pagans worship Satan” in a country that is predominately Christian but is supposed to NOT be a theocracy, i’m not going to work hard to stop the “problem” of people saying “A Christian did X and Christians get away with things that would land non-Christians in jail”.

especially not until Christians start trying to stop evil people from doing evil things in the name of Christianity.

Comment #59: denelian  on  06/11  at  05:50 AM

denelian,

Thank you also for your perspective in this and for laying it out so clearly. I’d like to point out again briefly that I didn’t think the jokes about religious rituals were offensive, and I wasn’t trying to imply those were. I’m sorry if it came across that way because they were pretty funny. Back to your point C: I never thought about it in terms of a ritual being performed on the country. I’m not sure I agree with that take on it, but I can see how you get there, and now that you’ve mentioned it, I can definitely see how this guy would think of it that way. And it’s definitely wrong that other religions couldn’t get away with it as well as this particular brand of (white flavoured) Christianity. I don’t have solutions for that on a national level, but I am grateful to have people point out how I missed the boat on the point of this post. You hear so much about the Christian crazies in the news, I’d gotten about as far as being grateful he hadn’t tried to blow the building up before I stopped thinking about what could be underlying problems with a culture that lets someone get away with crimes when they’re white ministers, but wouldn’t let other people.

I would like to say that Christians are trying to stop evil people from doing evil things in the name of Christianity. I do. If the church I go to didn’t, I wouldn’t go there. And while I can’t speak for the congregation at large, I do this every day by stopping friends and coworkers when they say something like that and trying to tell them why they shouldn’t.

Thank you all again!

Comment #60: nikki  on  06/11  at  08:45 AM

Here’s the kicker for me. He not only did something illegal (that, as was pointed out, would not be permitted if he wasn’t so priveledged), but immoral in intent.

His *intent* was to perform a ritual to lead his sky fairy to make the Sotomayor hearings go his way. Whatever you think of sky fairys (I’m a believer myself, but I have a sense of humor), he’s performing an act of emotional bullying.

Comment #61: KMac  on  06/11  at  09:05 AM

prayed for God to superintend over the entire confirmation process and mark them with truth

God may be omniscient and omnipresent, but He’s apparently very absent-minded, and needs to be reminded about things constantly.

Comment #62: Dunc  on  06/11  at  10:24 AM

I don’t think that praying over the room actually does anything….

It reminds those of us who do not believe, for the eight millionth time, that we are not welcome.  It sends a similar message to those who believe in other ways.

As for the “I’ll pray for you” meaning “fuck you?”  Yeah, it often does.  Not always and maybe not even most of the time.  But when “I’ll pray for you” immediately follows “I’m not Christian, I’m an atheist” it really, really does mean “fuck you.”  These people demand that we respect their beliefs and traditions—even when those beliefs and traditions are made into highly intrusive law—and feel no obligation whatsoever to return the favour.  Because they’re right, right?

Your contention that pointing this out is hateful to Christians is the same thing as the recent pearl-clutching from wealthy powerful white Republicans that the highly qualified and moderate judge being appointed to the Supreme Court of the United States is the real racist.  Not them and their Southern Strategy.  Explain why we have to be tolerant of people who hate us?

Comment #63: kaninchen  on  06/11  at  10:44 AM

KMac:

In many/most versions of People of the Book religion (judaism/christianity/islam) prayer for a specific outcome is considered blasphemy. You’re not supposed to attempt to compel the deity, you’re supposed to accept whatever the deity plans. So it may be comforting to think that, insofar as Schenk intended to push a specific outcome with his ceremony, even in his own religion he’s consigning himself to hell.

Comment #64: paul  on  06/11  at  10:51 AM

Thank you, paul, for that reminder!

My favorite angle in all of this is that he never comes out and says “We’re doing this to keep her from being confirmed.”  Noooooooo, they’re just praying that God will oversee the proceedings and open everyone’s eyes to The Truth—though we all know what they believe that truth to be.  And then he covers his ass with “Of course, in the end, we always pray that God’s will be done.”  That way if their bizarre pseudomagic fails, they can just shrug and say it wasn’t the pseudomagic that failed, it was God’s will that prevailed.

In which case, I will enjoy constantly reminding the whiners that they need to submit to God’s will on this one.

Comment #65: Roving Thundercloud  on  06/11  at  03:01 PM

That way if their bizarre pseudomagic fails, they can just shrug and say it wasn’t the pseudomagic that failed, it was God’s will that prevailed.

This seems wildly optimistic.  It would just mean that the Forces of Evil were resisting God’s Plan and stronger action needed to be taken.  Which begs the question: if God is so all fucking powerful, how come He can’t just wiggle His divine Nose and poof! God’s Plan is all done?  Elizabeth Montgomery could do it, what’s His problem?

Comment #66: kaninchen  on  06/11  at  04:01 PM

I can’t get too worked up about this. Yeah, the dog whistles got my ears buzzing, but this wasn’t an official thing, and he didn’t come out and say he was praying for a specific outcome (an it seems to me that “praying that God’s will be done” is redundant). Let him have his farcical oleaginous ceremony. It’s not like it was Leahy doing it.

Comment #67: Hershele Ostropoler  on  06/11  at  09:37 PM

I’m rather disinclined to keep the people away from the government. I mean, they should make sure no one’s going there killing people or whatever, but we should certainly err on the side of more, not less, access to our elected representatives.

Washington’s been burned down in this nation’s history, and the Republic didn’t fall.

Comment #68: Hershele Ostropoler  on  06/11  at  09:51 PM

Nikki;
i want to appologize for the crack about stopping people from doing evil in the name of Christianity. i know lots of good Christians who *do* speak against crap like that (my boyfriend, for one) - my frustration is with the “leaders” - those who DON’T speak against crap like this, at least beyond “he doesn’t represent *me*. i want Christian leaders to stand up and say “That person may claim to be a Christian, but s/he just did something that was *very* unChristian, and doing that is not cool”. like all the pro-life leaders who are saying “Murdering Dr. Tiller was wrong, and that guy wasn’t really part of our group, but remember how Bad Tiller was! so while it was wrong to murder him, it was only wrong because it makes us look bad. it’s a good thing he is dead. it is bad he was murdered but is good that he is dead”.
most of the Christian leaders who get media time say things that are similiar - they denounce the crime and the victim all in one breath, so that the impression that most get isn’t that a person committed a crime, but rather the “crime” is that the act is considered a crime at all. THOSE are the people i am mad at.

Hershele - i agree in the abstract that we should be allowed access to the government. my issue is that if one group of people are going to be allowed to do this sort of thing, EVERY group can - or none can.

Comment #69: denelian  on  06/12  at  05:48 AM

Fine. Let every group in, or at least bar only those that are going to be destructive, regardless of beliefs. They’re transacting public business, after all.

Comment #70: Hershele Ostropoler  on  06/12  at  01:45 PM

Hershele-
I understand your point about having access to the government, but given that these buildings are often targets of plots to bring harm to the people therein, I’m not cool with random people just wandering around. The fine line we have to walk between safety and liberty is noted, but having worked in these buildings, and been subject to the threats upon them, my perspective may be different. But there is free access to the hearings that take place (space limit restrictions not withstanding), and those are also broadcast for public information. If you want to see the room empty, you can sign up for a tour. I don’t think letting people have access to empty rooms does anything to improve public access to our government, and does threaten the safety of the people in the buildings. I mean, think of what this guy could have done if his intentions were more sinister.

Comment #71: Awkward  on  06/12  at  03:15 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.