Mitt Gets New Wingnut Supporters

Mitt Gets New Wingnut Supporters February 1, 2012

The race between the Republican presidential candidates to see who can line up more bigots and lunatics to endorse them continues apace. Mitt Romney’s campaign released a letter from a group of social conservatives who vouched that, despite his long history of taking liberal positions on social issues, he really will be as theocratic as the other candidates. Right Wing Watch looks at some of the crazy things said by one of them, Roberto Miranda:

Satan has warred mightily against this region, and has effectively neutralized it through the influence of principalities of rationalism, humanism, intellectual pride and spiritual arrogance. Massachusetts, as well as all of New England, has become a cemetery of churches, a breeding ground for heretical doctrine, and intellectual furnace energizing attitudes of godlessness, rational arrogance and secularism It is no coincidence, of course, that something as dramatically distant from the Christian worldview as gay marriage would be originated in this region.

Is it exaggerated to see prophetic significance in the fact that on September 11, 2001 Boston served as the point of departure for the deadly forces that spread so much destruction and havoc in this nation and all over the world? What took place at the material level is now being carried out at the moral and spiritual level, as the virus of homosexuality and gay marriage begins to spread dramatically all over this nation and perhaps the world.

He’ll fit right in.

"Exactly when haven't they made that choice after making it available?"

Arizona GOP Tries Dumbest Political Dirty ..."
"Fun with acronyms... Fun Unless Citizens Know Everyone Does Underhanded Punning."

Study: 45,000 Deaths Per Year Due ..."
"Well "this" pope, sure, because he's all social-justicey. Plus he's from oneathem brown countries. His ..."

Arizona GOP Tries Dumbest Political Dirty ..."
"There's no way that's possible. I work in health care in Canada. I would imagine ..."

Study: 45,000 Deaths Per Year Due ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Doug Little

    as the virus of homosexuality and gay marriage begins to spread dramatically all over this nation and perhaps the world

    I wasn’t aware that homosexuality originated in the United States. He needs to get out more.

  • grumpyoldfart

    Rationalists, humanists, and intellectuals are sending churches to the graveyard. He says it as if that was a bad thing.

  • eric

    Rationalism is a principality of Satan. Lovely.

  • Zinc Avenger

    @eric, #3:

    Of course it is. Rationality causes doubt that impossible things, like, well, all of christianity, is true. That plays into satan’s hands, because faith > everything.

  • kaboobie

    Don’t mess with Massachusetts! We have the lowest divorce rate in the country; so much for same-sex marriage being a threat. And I’m sure the abandonment of churches has a lot more to do with the Catholic sex abuse scandal, which came to a head in Boston and forced the diosces to cut costs by closing parishes in order to pay settlements to victims.

  • raven

    Massachusetts, as well as all of New England, has become a cemetery of churches, a breeding ground for heretical doctrine, and intellectual furnace energizing attitudes of godlessness, rational arrogance and secularism.

    He says that like it is a bad thing.

    Cemetery of churches? Cthulhu, overstated and we should be so lucky.

    I’d say someone who hates and fears rational thought has a problem. They aren’t going to function very well in our modern Hi Tech society.

    Secularism. Beats sectarian warfare, theocracy, and oogedy boogedy religion any day.

  • Reginald Selkirk

    Santorum also gets a new wingnut supporter: Santorum picks up Tancredo endorsement

  • anandine

    a breeding ground for heretical doctrine, and intellectual furnace energizing attitudes of godlessness, rational arrogance and secularism

    This sounds like my house. I’ve bred a couple of heretical doctrines there, and a couple of heretics, too.

  • frankb

    I thought gay marriage originated from Iowa.

  • John Hinkle

    Mitt: Thanks, um, for the um, endorsement. I’ll be sure to keep you in mind during the general election.

    Mitt thinking: Dammit Newt, how did I get stuck with these nutcakes? Oh yeah, the primaries are pandermonium.

  • Sastra

    “a breeding ground for heretical doctrine, an intellectual furnace energizing attitudes of godlessness, rational arrogance and secularism”

    Hey, I think Freethought Blogs just found a motto.

  • Ha, Sastra FTW.

  • alost

    There’s nothing even remotely objectionable about heretical doctrine, intellectual furnaces energizing attitudes of godlessness, rational “arrogance” and seculiarism. If that’s to be our motto, fine with me. Were you trying to land an insult, Sastra, or did you not understand that most of us wear those insults like badges of honor anyway?

  • Doug Little

    alost, you must be new here?

  • alost

    secularism*

    Corrected before someone who wants to feel clever makes a remark. 🙂

    In any case, given how blatantly wrong everything else the man says is, I’m not too hurt by his not-so-civil comments regarding secularism. What he has said is really no worse than what you hear on the radio, in print or on websites from like-minded fellows of Mr. Miranda on a daily basis.

  • alost

    Doug,

    New enough that I have little patience to double-check the post history of every user. I’ve been hardened enough by what you read on blogs to go about determining whether or not their sarcastic-to-serious ratio in the comment sections of FFB is such that I should either laugh along with certain users or consider them serious.

  • jimmiraybob

    @ #1 Doug Little

    I wasn’t aware that homosexuality originated in the United States.

    Yes. The Supreme Court started laying out the theoretical and engineering foundations in the 1920s & 30s. The Beatniks began prototype work in the 50s and the Hippies, what with their wild rock & roll and long hair and no bras and free love, made the first Homosexual V 1.0 release in the summer of 1968.

  • Sastra

    alost #13 wrote:

    Were you trying to land an insult, Sastra, or did you not understand that most of us wear those insults like badges of honor anyway?

    Neither.

  • jimmiraybob

    Disclaimer: The sarcastic-to-serious ratio of my previous comment is roughly 98:1, give or take a mackerel or two.

  • Doug Little

    jimmiraybob,

    Ha Ha, I like it, couldn’t you trace the root cause all the way back to the enlightenment by your own reasoning then?

  • exdrone

    “Heretical doctrine“? Isn’t that a double negative? If enough people support a heresy that it becomes doctrine, then the original doctrine would become the heresy.

  • coragyps

    “intellectual furnace energizing attitudes of godlessness”

    I’m getting that t-shirt!

  • jimmiraybob

    Doug,

    You can certainly trace the rise in influence of rationalism, humanism and expanding intellectualism to the Renaissance rise of humanism in 14th century medieval Italy – Florence (as opposed to the preceding intellectually static, conservative and Church influenced scholasticism). This is when the cracks started appearing in the wall of separation between the Church and the sequestered historical story of Greece and Rome. (It must be hell to think that you’ve gotten rid of all the evidence only to have some smart ass find it hidden in monastery libraries/basements.)

    Apparently Petrarch (and bunches more), often called the father of Humanism – or possibly the original hippie, ate an apple of knowledge and then a few centuries went by and we had the Enlightenment and then we had the founders (trained in the law and the classics) and then we had the US supreme court then the beatniks and then the hippies. It’s been holy war ever since.

    This is why, after giving great thought to the battle cry of “We will take our country back,” I’ve concluded they must mean to the 11-12th centuries.

  • F

    jimmiraybob

    This is why, after giving great thought to the battle cry of “We will take our country back,” I’ve concluded they must mean to the 11-12th centuries.

    I imagine that the descendants of the folks actually living in lands which now comprise the U.S. at that time might not have a problem with that.

  • Is it exaggerated to see prophetic significance in the fact that on September 11, 2001 Boston served as the point of departure for the deadly forces that spread so much destruction and havoc in this nation and all over the world?

    Yes. Yes it is.

  • Tony

    coragyps:

    “intellectual furnace energizing attitudes of godlessness”

    I’m getting that t-shirt!

    -I’m want a trucker hat with that on it!

  • ambulocetacean

    a breeding ground for heretical doctrine

    Like a Mormon president would be the answer to that “problem”.

  • walton

    It also bears repeating that Romney has an appalling position on immigration, even compared with the other candidates (and they’re all pretty bad). See this article for starters. As much as I loathe Gingrich, the latter hit the nail on the head when he called Romney the “anti-immigrant candidate”.

    To everyone who’s worked in or knows anything about the fields of immigration law and immigrants’ rights, it’s obvious that three things are desperately needed: amnesty for existing undocumented residents, a total moratorium on immigration raids and removal proceedings, and a complete overhaul of the INA to make it much easier to migrate legally. (The present immigration laws are a disaster, and come at a terrible human cost.) Sadly, none of these things are going to happen in the immediate future, whoever the next president is. But Romney even opposes moderate measures like the DREAM Act that would make things a little better for a subset of the undocumented population; and he’s pandering obsessively to racist anti-immigrant hate groups like FAIR which favour tougher restrictions and more deportations.

  • walton

    It also bears repeating that Romney has an appalling position on immigration, even compared with the other candidates (and they’re all pretty bad). See this article for starters. As much as I loathe Gingrich, the latter hit the nail on the head when he called Romney the “anti-immigrant candidate”.

    To everyone who’s worked in or knows anything about the fields of immigration law and immigrants’ rights, it’s obvious that three things are desperately needed: amnesty for existing undocumented residents, a total moratorium on immigration raids and removal proceedings, and a complete overhaul of the INA to make it much easier to migrate legally. Sadly, none of these things are going to happen in the immediate future, whoever the next president is. But Romney even opposes moderate measures like the DREAM Act that would make things a little better for a subset of the undocumented population; and he’s pandering obsessively to racist anti-immigrant hate groups like FAIR which favour tougher restrictions and more deportations.

  • Ichthyic

    Rationalists, humanists, and intellectuals are sending churches to the graveyard. He says it as if that was a bad thing.

    Reminds me of one Pastor Ray Mummert….

    “We’ve been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture!”

    R. Mummert, 2005(?)

    famously immediately responded to with:

    “That’s so unfair – they’re obviously unarmed!”

    -anonymous

  • Ichthyic

    …to which I would now add:

    “Yeah, but they outnumber us 10 to 1!”

  • RickR

    alost- too bad you haven’t hung out more. You’d know that Sastra is a treasure.

  • dingojack

    Roberto Miranda (a Protestant) is endorsing Mittens (a Mormon). They are both just so worried about American’s ‘heretical doctines’.

    What like breaking from the Catholic Church?

    @@

    Dingo

  • Michael Heath

    I think the difference between Romney and Gingrich on immigration is the difference between playing a short game and a long game.

    Gov. Romney’s playing on anti-immigration racist bigotry to get elected in 2012. It’s a tactical move based on current conditions.

    Speaker Gingrich entered this race merely to market his brand and services on the cheap – consider all the free PR; he demonstrably had no intentions of making it this far. E.g., his failure to even file for primary elections in some states. So his platform planks need to remain built to last so 10+ years from now when Republicans falsely claim they’re were the defender of Hispanic-American rights (because without Hispanics, they won’t be able to win in districts they now dominate), Gingrich can claim he was always there as he poses as the wise old dude of the party – “with connections!”

  • ambulocetacean

    Michael Heath,

    What’s with all the honorifics, like “Gov. Romney” and “Speaker Gingrich”?

    It’s bizarre to me that in the US people seem to take their titles with them when they leave (or get thrown out of) the positions that entitled them.

    Here in Oz we might write (in all lower-case) “the former prime minister John Howard”.

    But if we ran into the fucking arsehole on the street we wouldn’t address him as “Prime Minister Howard”. We might address him as “John”, “Mr Howard” or “you slimy fucking racist piece of shit”, but we wouldn’t call him “Prime Minister”. We have had two other prime ministers since he got chucked out.

    That’s a small point. But why is “Coach” an honorific in the US?

    It drives me up the wall watching American TV and movies and hearing people talking about “Coach so-and-so”.

    I’m all in favour of sports teachers but to me classroom teachers seem at a minimum equally deserving of an honorific and of the reverence that such a title seems to bring.

  • d cwilson

    ambulocetacean:

    I understand your frustration. I never understood why former officeholders still get referred to by the title of the last office they’ve held, long after their term has ended. It gets even more ridiculous when people refer to someone like Sarah Palin as “Gov. Palin” since she bailed on that job to cash in on the Fox gravy train.

    I can only assume that it’s some protocol that was adopted in order to engender respect and civility in our political process. As you can see, it’s worked out wonderfully for us.

  • John Hinkle

    ambulocetacean:

    When I was a swimmer, our coach, Tom, who we called Tom, came back from a clinic one day and insisted from then on we call him “coach Tom.” Two of the senior swimmers whispered together, and then countered with: Well, we’ll call you coach Tom if you call us swimmer Joe and swimmer Dave.

    Tom relented and was known ever after as Tom.

  • ambulocetacean

    John Hinkle — Hah! That’s what I like to hear.

    d cwilson,

    As you can see, it’s worked out wonderfully for us.

    Quite. Not that Australian politics is any examplar of civility either…

  • Michael Heath

    I use honorifics because I like to craft what I hope are winning arguments. Part of doing so is having an offense that frames itself to be in good faith and playing pragmatic defense. In the case of honorifics not allowing your opponents to create red herrings with openings you provided to them by using slurs against your opponents where you do no such thing for your tribe’s corresponding leaders, e.g., Obama vs. “Reagan the scumbag”, or to turn it around, George Bush vs. “Barry”. I stick to their name, their title, Mr. or Ms., and their last name only if I used all prior.

    For example, when a conservative refers to President Obama as “Barry”, he’s essentially crushing any trust a reasonable person should have that what follows which they do not know is true. Another losing argument is slurring your political opponent based on your perception of their physical attributes. This is particularly frustrating when a liberal male starts demeaning a female opponent based on his perception of her physical attributes. He’s not merely showing he’s low-class, he’s also strongly suggesting he can’t win on the merits and is therefore hoping to appeal to others’ bigotries. Instead what’s he’s doing is revealing his own character flaws along with providing fodder to conservatives that liberalism is by attribute sexist. That’s not true of course, but it provides the conservative with a red herring to chase when we could have nailed them on the merits of the issue originally raised. They avoid your argument and defectively conclude liberals in general are just as sexist if not more so than they are.

    I also think honorifics used by the person criticizing the person getting the honorifics is sending a signal they will be arguing the merits and will not act kindly to rhetorical and logical fallacies. This of course drives the dumber tribalists in the forum nuts, even before much is even challenged. It’s like a dog whistle from the enemy which causes them to shriek in pain. Not that this forum has this kind, but they sure do in a venue like the Wall Street Journal. Their collective idiocy depends on being show favoritism merely for being a loyal tribal member, where they enjoy the illusion of being right and having strong arguments. Presenting an argument that makes it difficult to figure out which tribe one is from is not a context within where these partisans’ set of slurs and talking points work, which is a joy to observe since they’ve got nothing otherwise.

  • dingojack

    ambulocetacean – RE: Civility in Australian politics.

    Just ask Mal “That quisling quasimodo from Queensland” Coulston or Pauline “The Oxley moron” Hanson. 🙂

    ._._._.

    The most esteemed Mr. M Heath, esq. –

    Sir,

    If the person behaves in way that engenders some kind of respect* (or at very least doesn’t engender disrespect), then I would use their (usually empty) title – otherwise it’s contempt all the way down.

    His Most Sublime Majesty, The Exceedingly Honourable Sir Dingo, KCROC, DHC (bar), GOPT, OSNA and etc.**

    —-

    * for example, Captain Norm Holcomb [CHC, USN (Ret)]

    ** Michael – I expect, in future, you will use my full title in all correspondence. [ 😉 ]

  • ambulocetacean

    Hi Michael,

    Sure, I get what you’re doing by not using slurs. I just find the whole “Governor Romney” and “Governor Palin” thing weird. Oh well.

    Dingo,

    Oh yes, and Julia Gillard being “deliberately barren” and all that.

    Things have slipped a long way since Paul Keating’s day. Where are all the good insults, like “You stupid foul-mouthed grub”?

    Ah, those were the days.

    http://www.webcity.com.au/keating/

  • dingojack

    “Unrepresentive swill”. 🙂

    Dingo

    —–

    I believe he once called Jon Howard(?) ‘a cunning runt’.

  • dingojack

    For those no familar with Paul Keating’s work, here’s a section from ‘Keating! The musical‘.

    Yep, he did say those things.

    Dingo

    —–

    ‘Feral Abacus’. Hee hee.

  • Michael Heath

    ambulocetacean writes:

    Sure, I get what you’re doing by not using slurs. I just find the whole “Governor Romney” and “Governor Palin” thing weird. Oh well.

    When Sarah Palin quit as governor I immediately stopped using that title with her.

  • Uncle Glenny

    A little late to this:

    ambulocetecean asked:

    What’s with all the honorifics, like “Gov. Romney” and “Speaker Gingrich”?

    It’s bizarre to me that in the US people seem to take their titles with them when they leave (or get thrown out of) the positions that entitled them.

    There are some conventions about which honorifics stick with the person after they have left officce, and also how they are used as titles. “President” and (it would seem) “Governor” do so. I think lesser offices do not. (I note Ray Flynn, one of the signatories to that letter, does not use the title “Mayor.”) Then there’s proper use of “Reverend”, “Honorable,” etc.

    I believe I have an old etiquette book which covers this, not to mention a style guide, but I’ll never find them because I can’t find anything in this house because I have too many books. (I bought myself a kindle fire for christmas, and I’ve also started streaming videos.)

  • ambulocetacean

    Hi Uncle Glenny,

    It seems it goes a lot further than president and governor. Michael Heath refers to “Speaker Gingrich”, and don’t judges keep their titles? And *ugh* coaches?

    Any way, never mind. =)