Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
A friend (who is a Christian) forwarded me a link to this article at CNSNews that demonstrates so perfectly the emptiness of the religious right's attempts to strike the martyr pose. "Obama is trying to destroy us!" they cry. But all they really demonstrate is their own rank dishonesty.
This time it's about the guy Obama has nominated to run the TSA, who answered a question about domestic terrorism threats and he cited a number of white supremacist groups, including the Christian Identity movement.
In the interview, Southers was asked whether there were "groups inside the United States that pose a danger to our security?" "Domestically speaking, a large part, most of the groups we have here in the United States, are white supremacists groups, World Church of the Creator, National Alliance, Aryan Nations. There are some black separatist groups," said Southers. "What's interesting about those groups is you find that they are usually either Christian identity groups and/or groups that really have a foothold in our correctional or prison systems in the way of radicalization and recruiting." Southers was then asked: "Which home-grown terrorist groups pose the greatest danger to the U.S.?" "Most of the domestic groups that we have to pay attention to here are white supremacist groups. They're anti-government and in most cases anti-abortion," he said. "They are usually survivalist-type in nature, identity orientated. If you recall, Buford Furrow came to Los Angeles in, I believe, it was 1999. When he went to three different Jewish institutions, museums, and then wound up shooting people at a children's community center, then shooting a Filipino postal worker later on. Matthew Hale, who's the Pontifex Maximus of the World Church of the Creator out of Illinois, and Ben Smith, who went on a shooting spree in three different cities where he killed a number of African Americans and Jews and Asians that day. Those groups are groups that claim to be extremely anti-government and Christian-identity oriented."
OMG! He's calling Christians terrorists! Except he isn't. He's not talking about people who identify themselves as Christians, he's talking about the Christian Identity movement, which is a collection of white supremacist churches and organizations that believe that white Europeans were the true Israelites (yes, they're obviously crazy).
This is the same lie the religious right trotted out after the Department of Homeland Security released a report on some of the dangerous right wing fringe movements last year -- they were strangely silent when the same department issued two reports on dangerous left wing fringe groups a couple years earlier. And the left didn't throw a fit about those reports because, frankly, they don't typically engage in politics at quite that level of stupidity and dishonesty.
Politics
Comments
A lady who I work with told me that she thought all muslims are terrorists (yes, ALL of them). When I brought up the fact that you could say the same thing about all christians considering the hefty amouount of terrorist attacks in this country committed by christians, she shut right up; then pulled a "no true Scotsman."
As far as them being persecuted; that's what they really want. Appearantly if you're not being persecuted you're not a real christian.
Those poor persecuted christians.
Posted by: Anyong | January 20, 2010 9:30 AM
Ed Brayton: And the left didn't throw a fit about those reports because, frankly, they don't typically engage in politics at quite that level of stupidity and dishonesty.
Possibly because the extreme right has a significantly lower ratio of brilliant to sub-median minds.
Posted by: abb3w | January 20, 2010 9:40 AM
Abb3w @ 2 - Perhaps not the best empirical evidence to make your case given this presentation contains a couple of misspelled words while rating a vocabulary test - e.g., slghtly [sic] conservative, extrmly [sic] conservative. Plenty of space to spell correctly and inconsistent with other column headers being spelled correctly.
Could you please explain what the score results of the vocabulary test describe? I don't understand precisely what is being captured by this table.
Posted by: Michael Heath | January 20, 2010 9:58 AM
Wait a minute. The republicans blocked the guy who was nominated to head the TSA and it's Obama's fault that the TSA didn't catch the underwear bomber guy?! WTF is wrong with people?!
By the way, Southers withdrew (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34952712/ns/politics-more_politics/).
Posted by: Kierra | January 20, 2010 9:58 AM
Kierra: Everything is Obama's fault. I mean, it's bad enough that he invaded Iraq, but when he lost Vietnam to the Commies, I said "That's too much!"
Posted by: Modusoperandi | January 20, 2010 10:27 AM
And don't forget, he started this whole bank bailout mess.
Posted by: Anyong | January 20, 2010 10:41 AM
I came across this same story at Worldview Weekend, where the writer seemed to have never heard of Christian Identity; fortunately, there were a few commenters who were willing to explain what it was and why most Christians would not want to consider themselves CI. It gives me some hope that there are still a few readers out there who can distinguish fact from hysteria - unless they were all trolls.
Currently, WvW up in arms that Obama has extended immunity from search & seizure to Interpol, which is being portrayed as a near-equivalent to bringing in a foreign army.
Posted by: Scott Hanley | January 20, 2010 10:50 AM
Hey, if the religious right wants to tacitly align itself (and, by extension, Christianity) with racist wingnuts, I say encourage them. Discrediting themselves can only improve things for the rest of us.
Posted by: schism | January 20, 2010 10:52 AM
If you go to the comments section of the CNS article, you will be amused (or not, depending on your sense of humor...)...
Posted by: How | January 20, 2010 11:42 AM
Souther's withdrawal is precisely the problem with the Democrats: they simply refuse to fight for their principles. The right wing comes up with absurd allegations about superbly qualified Obama nominees, yet, instead of standing firm or standing behind the people nominated, Obama and other high-ranking Democrats crumble. This has happened time and again over the past year, and each time it happens just emboldens the conservatives more.
I think this was a large part of the Democratic loss in Massachusetts (I know, wrong thread!). Coakley herself was a pretty terrible candidate, and she ran a poor campaign. She was forced to give in to the Nelson amendment, however, which demonstrated the Democrat's unwillingness to stand behind their principles, and Obama acted like he could have cared less about the race until the very last minute, showing an unwillingness to support another Democrat.
With Souther and Coakley (and all the others), this projects a feeling of weakness and a lack of commitment to the voting public, whose exposure to the news via television is quite limited. The Republicans and teabaggers seem strong, and the public reacts favorably to that - even given the negative effect of their policies. The Democrats would be wise to learn a thing or two from them - but I don't expect that to happen anytime soon.
Posted by: Thinkoplex | January 20, 2010 11:47 AM
It should be noted that Matthew Hale and his World Church of the Creator (now called the Creativity Movement), despite the name, is not Christian. He and his group are atheists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Church_of_the_Creator
Posted by: AL | January 20, 2010 1:03 PM
AL: An atheist religion? I thought that was Darwinism?
I kid! I kid! I kid because I love.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | January 20, 2010 5:21 PM
@AL: So which christian cult isn't atheist? The Roman Catholic church is obviously atheist, and I bet the Eastern Orthodox church is also atheist.
Posted by: MadScientist | January 20, 2010 7:04 PM
@ Michael Heath #3: ..."I don't understand precisely what is being captured by this table."
A: They're a buncha booger-eatin' mouth-breathers. Or something like that.
Posted by: jws | January 20, 2010 9:21 PM
The headline of the CNSNews article is:
"Obama’s TSA Nominee Characterized Groups That Were Domestic Security Threats as ‘Anti-Abortion’ and Having ‘Christian Identity’"
The phrase "Having Christian Identity’" indicates the editors either don't have a clue that there really are American Nazis who style themselves as members of the Christian Identity movement, or (far more likely, in my opinion) CSN is just trying to trick people into thinking that Southers was referring in general to people who have an "identity" as Christians. Cheap trick, that, but good enough for the brain-challenged Teabagger crowd.
Not surprisingly, nowhere in the article is "Christian Identity" defined. This is scary. It makes me wonder if CSN is trying to defend those Nazis and skinheads. If they weren't up to doing that, it seems to me that they would be disassociating themselves from the Nazis, and attacking those racists as "fake Christians."
This all reminds me of how, decades ago, that the Mafia itself founded the "Italian American Anti-Defamation League" in order to deny the very existence of the Mafia.
Posted by: HalfMooner | January 21, 2010 8:37 AM
OK, here's the definitive word on this one.
Speaking from experience providing information to certain agencies about the criminal activities of domestic extremist groups.
Southers' nomination was placed on hold by South Carolina Senator DeMint, who claimed the hold was due to Southers' sympathies for unions, and DeMint's opposition to potential unionization of TSA employees.
However!
DeMint is a member of The Family, aka the C-Street Cult.
C-Street follows a dominionist ideology. Some of the groups that Southers spoke of are identified as having philosophical roots in common with dominionism. This is particularly true of the anti-abortion extremist groups that have been associated with domestic terrorist and assassination activity.
DeMint was using "unions" as a cover for opposing someone who would have made it a priority to investigate extremist groups with which DeMint shares philosophical roots.
In other words, to put it rather bluntly and with only slight rhetorical flourish:
DeMint is in bed with domestic terrorists.
And Southers was a victim of DeMint putting his extremist sympathies ahead of national security.
DeMint needs to be called out on this and held accountable.
Posted by: SME | January 21, 2010 10:40 AM
@MadScientist
??? Not sure what you are talking about...???
Posted by: AL | January 22, 2010 1:42 AM
@ SME - "DeMint is in bed with domestic terrorists."
Domestic terrorists found deMint on da pillow? They must patronise strange hotels. -Dingo :)
Posted by: DingoJack | January 22, 2010 2:05 AM
@MadScientist
I'm hoping you're not simply knee-jerk reacting and assuming I said what I said because I'm trying to pull a No True Scotsman and insist that no way can White Supremacists be Christian, because I'm not. I'm an atheist, if that matters, and I said what I said because it is true. Matthew Hale and the WCotC really are atheists and explicitly so, and have nothing to do with Christianity. If you had checked out the link above I provided, you would know, but if you want another, here it is:
http://www.adl.org/backgrounders/wcotc.asp
These guys have a "White Man's Bible" which claims that Christianity is a "Jewish religion" designed to subvert the White Race. I'm seriously not making this stuff up.
Posted by: AL | January 22, 2010 2:19 AM
AL - You're using that ol' favorite of apologists everywhere, "No True Scotsmen".
Christians have thousands of differing cults, many don't consider anyone except themselves to be 'true Christians'.
Your brand of Christianity probably thinks some other types aren't really Christians, but clearly not being Muslim, Jewish, Buddhist, Shintoist, 'Satanist' & etc, they must be, in reality, atheists (an assertion, I would say, that is self-evidently false since they clearly postulate a supernatural being or beings).
Labeling a group that clearly has a Christian ethos as 'not being real Christians' or 'atheists' or whatever isn't really the point, because they self-identify as Christians.
Also, note: 'all poodles are dogs, but not not all dogs are poodles'. -Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | January 22, 2010 2:28 AM
@DingoJack
Did you even read what I wrote and the links I provided? You accuse me of No True Scotsman right after I addressed how this is not No True Scotsman and that WCotC really, really, really (and I mean really, for crying out loud, just click my links and read it) have nothing to do with Christianity. WCotC does not "self-identify" as Christian. Matthew Hale is openly atheist and attacks Christianity quite vocally. I mean seriously, I don't know why it's hard for you guys to just read the info I've provided. If it's a case of tldr, then here's a quick excerpt from the ADL link:
Posted by: AL | January 22, 2010 3:03 AM
I don't know if Ed will be cool with me linking directly to a White Supremacist site, so I won't, but I will excerpt the relevant parts from the WCotC's official site, so you will know that WCotC does not "self-identify as Christians," nor do they "postulate a supernatural being or beings".
From WCotC's official site:
"Creators" are what they call members of their group.
Posted by: AL | January 22, 2010 3:22 AM
AL - Cool yer boots.
Due to technical problems at this end (I have been informed) my system is very out of synch. Apologies if this causes frustration at that end (imagine how I feel about it!)
You did read the last sentence of my last, didn't you? - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | January 22, 2010 3:42 AM
No, DJ, seriously, I don't think WCotC affirms a single line of the Nicene Creed.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/wcotc1.htm
Posted by: DaveL | January 22, 2010 5:44 AM
Michael Heath: Perhaps not the best empirical evidence to make your case given this presentation contains a couple of misspelled words while rating a vocabulary test - e.g., slghtly [sic] conservative, extrmly [sic] conservative. Plenty of space to spell correctly and inconsistent with other column headers being spelled correctly.
The link actually posts a query to an automated interface to the General Social Survey data. It appears they have imposed a (consistent) 20 character maximum size on these labels. Since the GSS dates back to 1972, it's possible these contractions date back to the days when FORTRAN ruled the earth and when each extra character in an array was a major cost and performance burden. However, checking the NORC.org GSS interface shows the exact same contractions; their use appears standard for the GSS.
You can track down and ask a sociologist if you want a better explanation of why they're used, but it's a cosmetic issue that is irrelevant to the statistical validity of the correlations.
Michael Heath: Could you please explain what the score results of the vocabulary test describe?
WORDSUM in the GSS is commonly used as a proxy for IQ or general intelligence (see tinyurl.com/yafhy6x for one dude's discussion). Google Scholar turns up about 90 papers that mention it, and Razib over at Gene Expression (scienceblogs.com/gnxp) often plays around with the GSS for blog items there; he discusses WORDSUM in a couple posts.
Mean IQ is defined as 100; median WORDSUM value is 6.
In the link, I recoded to group WORDSUM into ranges of 0-2, 3-5, 6-7, and 8-10 for a more compact table; however, the correlation results look about the same even if you use the fully spread values.
Posted by: abb3w | February 2, 2010 9:31 AM