The fact that some people — predominantly evangelicals — believe that Mormonism is a cult and not a religion is not a disqualifier. I happen to believe that it is a bit of both, while there are aspects of other faiths that are . . . uh, unusual compared to the religious mainstream.

The fact that the Mormon church does not respect separation of church and state is not a disqualifier. Highly aggravating, but not a disqualifier.

The fact that the Mormon church, which is referred to as the General Motors of religions is obscenely wealthy with an estimated tax-exempt wealth in excess of $40 billion, is not a disqualifier.

The fact that the Mormon church is anti-gay and spends buckets of money to try to block same sex marriage initiatives, sometimes through shadow groups that intentionally hide their ties to the church, is not a disqualifier.

The fact that the Mormon church was extremely slow to welcome men of African descent into its priesthood, failing to do so until 1978, and remains overwhelmingly white is not a disqualifier.

The fact that some vestiges of polygamy still exist on the fringes of the Mormon church is not a disqualifier. (Romney’s great-great grandfather had 12 wives and his great grandparents moved to Mexico to avoid anti-polygamy laws.)

And the fact that Romney refuses to criticize less positive aspects of the church and reaffirms his faith in only the most general terms also is not a disqualifier, nor has he faced the kind of scrutiny that he did in 2008 when he was prompted to give a speech in Dallas reaffirming his faith.

What is at issue is:

* The incestuous relationship between the church, Romney and Bain Capital, the private equity house where he became filthy rich as CEO.

Bain has donated millions of dollars in stock to the church, and while there is nothing illegal about a firm making charitable contributions, the relationship is troubling because neither Bain nor the church are likely to make public any details. Same for Romney, who has released personal income tax information only because his refusal to do so became a drag on his campaign.

* Whether, in the event Romney is elected, he would be influenced by a church that makes meddling in politics a full-time preoccupation. Would he drag its beliefs into our lives?

In 1964, when his father George was in his second year as Michigan governor, he received a letter from a member of the top Mormon governing body reminding him of the teaching of the Mormon prophet Joseph Smith that “the Lord had placed the curse upon the Negro” and urged him to drop his support for the 1964 Civil Rights Bill lest God strike him dead for his apostasy.

In response, George Romney redoubled his commitment and led a march the following year in downtown Detroit in solidarity with Martin Luther King for voting rights in Selma, Alabama. It seems less likely that Mitt Romney would have his father’s backbone if the church beckoned.

As I noted, questions about Romney and his financial relationship with the church and its relationship with Bain will go unanswered. This is because his faith isn’t creating ripples this election year — a good thing in and of itself — despite increased interest in Mormonism because of “Big Love,” the recently ended HBO series on a fictional fundamentalist Mormon family that practices polygamy.

Finally, Romney fulminates about religious liberty, which he recently has been wont to do, at his own risk. Same for gay rights.

This will inconveniently remind voters of less mainstream aspects of Mormonism past and present, as well as the fact that the church by some estimates dropped $20 million bucks into the fight to pass Proposition 8 in California. The now overturned ballot initiative mandated that there be a provision in the state constitution that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized.

One other thing about culture wars: One side typically has absolutely no understanding of what the other is trying to say.

That is why the battle over whether religious institutions should be required to cover contraception under the new health care law was so painful — and why it was so hard to comprehend why President Obama, who has been a critic of culture wars for so long, did not try to defuse this explosive question from the beginning.

It’s also why he was right, finally, to reach a compromise that respected the legitimate concerns of each side. He should have done this at the outset, but far better late than never.

That so many liberal Catholics supported the church’s core claim surprised both Catholic conservatives and more secular liberals. There are lessons here, and that includes lessons for Obama.

Those of us who are liberal Catholics have remained in the church for reasons beyond tribal loyalties or a desire to honor the traditions of our parents and grandparents. At the heart of the love many of us have for the church — despite our frustrations over its abysmal handling of the sexual abuse scandal and its reluctance to grant women the rights they are due — is a profound respect for the fact on so many questions that count, Catholicism walks its talk and harnesses its faith to the good works the Gospel demands.

When it comes to lifting up the poor, healing the sick, assisting immigrants and refugees, educating the young (especially in inner cities), comforting orphaned and abandoned children, and organizing the needy to act in their own interest, the church has been there with resources and an astoundingly committed band of sisters, priests, brothers and lay people. Organizations such as Catholic Charities, the Catholic Health Association, the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, and Catholic Relief Services make the words of Jesus come alive every day.

For liberals who sided with the church in this controversy, the most vexing problem with the original exemption on contraception is that it defined “religious” so narrowly that the reality that these organizations go out of their way to serve non-Catholics was held against them. Their Gospel-inspired work was defined as non-religious. This violated the very essence of Christian charity and the church’s social justice imperatives.

Some conservative Catholics still insist that the relief from regulation that Obama offered is not enough. I hope they reconsider, especially since the Catholic service providers most affected by the revised rule welcomed it. What bothers liberal Catholics about the arguments advanced by some of our conservative friends is that the Catholic right seems so eager to focus the church’s witness to the world on issues such as abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research and, now, perhaps, contraception that they would effectively, if not necessarily intentionally, relegate the church’s social justice work and teaching to second-class status.

Liberal Catholics were proud to stand with conservatives in defending the church’s religious liberty rights in carrying out its social and charitable mission. Now, we’d ask conservatives to consider that what makes the Gospel so compelling — especially for the young, many of whom are leaving the church — is the central role it assigns to our responsibilities to act on behalf of the needy, the left-out and the abandoned.

And we’d ask our non-Catholic liberal friends to think about this, too. Many of us agreed that broad contraception coverage was, as a general matter, a good thing, and we shared their concern for women’s rights. But we were troubled that some with whom we usually agree seemed to relish a fight with the church and defined any effort to accommodate its anxieties as “selling out.”

As a young politician put it in 2006, “There are some liberals who dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant, insisting on a caricature of religious Americans that paints them as fanatical, or thinking that the very word ‘Christian’ describes one’s political opponents, not people of faith.”

Barack Obama, who spoke those words, finally figured out that a sensible compromise on contraception was far better than a running cultural and religious war. The administration would do well not to lose track of that guy again.

E.J. Dionne’s email address is ejdionne(at)washpost.com. (c) 2012, Washington Post Writers Group

The Bishops are demanding an end to any rule that requires any insurance company to cover any contraception or family planning as basic health issues for women. This is just the latest iteration of a centuries old objection to women having control of their bodies, their lives, their happiness and their liberty by the conservative power-focused elites running the Roman Catholic Church. This objection manifests itself in screeds against anything that treats sex as an activity separate from breeding and/or free from the dictates of Church Law.

And yet, I don’t think this latest play is about sex or even the Church trying to control the lives of women—I think it is about power and that sex, women, gay marriage and a host of other culture warrior issues are the pathway that they see as the golden road.

Yes the golden path back to “the good old days” before the reformation and the American and French revolutions.

For anybody who has looked at the history of the Catholic Church (and any organized religion for that matter) a key part of their activities over time becomes how to maintain power, privilege and influence—and all the goodies that come with it. Eventually that is all that matters for the institution. The greatest success in this effort always comes when political leaders bow to the dictates of the Holy Roman Church and agree to make State Law subservient to Church Law. Back in the days of Kings and Queens you only had a handful of elites you had to work with and the mutual pursuit of power inspired many of them to treat Church Law as State Law. It worked for a long while and then came the Reformation, Protestantism, King Henry, the Enlightenment, Democracy and eventually a desire by more and more people to make their laws free of religion and the dictates of any Church.

The United States of America was founded on the belief that Church and State are separate and that the Laws of this Nation trump the laws of any religion—including the Roman Catholic Church. As you can imagine, this has made the conservative wing of the Catholic Church quite sad. For over a century they have been on the losing end of many political fights—especially when it comes to women in America. The Church opposed suffrage for women and any effort over the years that might free women from the Church sanctioned role of breeder. The Church has fought every form of contraception and lost most battles. They also have lost the battle of finding any American politician who was willing to embrace the idea that US Law should be subservient to Church Law—until now.

While there are two Catholics in the race, Santorum and Gingrich, only Santorum is the true cultural warrior who could be counted on to place the will of the Bishops above the Constitution.  Once again the Bishops would have the power they desire.

Supporting a Santorum surge is an opportunity for power and that is why the Bishops are doubling down on opposing any insurance company offering any contraception or family planning services to anybody, anywhere. Ultimately the entire issue is about power and not about sex.

Of course the Catholic hierarchy is so out of touch even with American Catholics they can’t see that there is no possibility that Santorum could win a national election.  I suspect they may also fear the growing power of the Church of Latter Day Saints and would not like to see the Mormon Romney in the White House.

Cross posted at Newshoggers

Catholic voters largely approve of President Obama’s new policy on contraception, according to a poll released Saturday by groups that support the policy.

Supporters say the poll shows that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and congressional Republicans, who oppose the new policy as an affront to religious freedom, are out of step with the public. The new survey was conducted Friday evening, after Obama announced new “accommodations” for some religious employers.

According to the poll, 57 percent of Catholic voters — and 59 percent of Catholic women — support the mandate Obama outlined Friday. Under the new policy, women who work for institutions like Catholic hospitals and universities can obtain birth control from their insurance company without a co-pay, but their employers don’t have to include contraception in their healthcare plans.

Public Policy Polling conducted the new poll on behalf of a coalition that includes Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America. The findings indicate that Obama gained some ground with Catholics by alterning the policy. An earlier PPP poll found that 53 percent of Catholic voters approved of the White House’s original mandate, which required religious employers to provide contraception coverage directly.

Could Andrew Sullivan be right? He argues on The Daily Beast that rather than Obama committing a horrible, dumb political mistake, the way he handled it could be a political trap for Republicans. This poll would suggest (if it’s accurate) that it could turn into one, whether that was Obama’s intent or not. Here is a chunk of Sullivan’s analysis:

Suddenly no-drama Obama was neck deep in the kind of religious warfare he vowed to avoid. Many pundits—led by older white Catholic men, such as Joe Scarborough and my friend Chris Matthews and even the fair-minded liberal Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne—declared his decision on contraception as not only morally wrong but a politically disastrous violation of religious freedom. Suddenly the specter of 2004—when the culture-war issue of same-sex marriage gave Ohio and the entire election to George W. Bush—reemerged, and some conservative Catholic Democrats began to panic. Within the administration, almost all the white Catholic men opposed the decision—from Bill Daley to Leon Panetta. But critically, the support for the decision came from women, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and key adviser Valerie Jarrett chief among them. So Obama didn’t ignite just a culture war but a religious and gender war as well. Welcome to the election focused almost entirely on jobs.

But the conflict-driven headlines and predictions of disaster for Obama are, in my view, deeply misleading. Right now, they are driven both by cable news’s love of a good fight and high ratings and by the Republican primary campaign, in which the candidates, especially Newt Gingrich and Santorum, are desperately battling to unify the evangelical base, which is convinced its faith is somehow under attack. In the longer run, however, I suspect this sudden confluence of kerfuffles will be seen as one of the last gasps of the culture war, not its reignition. That’s especially possible since Obama’s swift walk-back last Friday, when he proposed an utterly sensible compromise, which exempts both churches and other religious institutions that cater to the general public from directly covering or paying for birth control, shifting the coverage requirement to insurance companies. So Catholic organizations will be able to stay out of the contraception question entirely, while contraception for all women will be kept free of charge. Instead of being lose-lose for the president, it became win-win. Most Catholics will be fine with this compromise, as are the Catholic Health Association and Planned Parenthood. But the bishops? They’ve gone out on a very long limb. This could be the moment when the culture-war tide finally turns and the social wedge issues long deployed so effectively by the Republican right begin to come back and bite them.

AND:

The more Machiavellian observer might even suspect this is actually an improved bait and switch by Obama to more firmly identify the religious right with opposition to contraception, its weakest issue by far, and to shore up support among independent women and his more liberal base. I’ve found by observing this president closely for years that what often seem like short-term tactical blunders turn out in the long run to be strategically shrewd. And if this was a trap, the religious right walked right into it.

Indeed, I thought the political war over contraception was over years ago.

On the other hand, I also thought that the battle over evolution was over years ago. So what do I know?

A bit more of Sullivan:

And on the issue of contraception itself, studies have shown that a staggering 98 percent of Catholic women not only believe in birth control but have used it. How is it possible to describe this issue as a violation of individual conscience, when no one is forced to use contraception against their will, and most Catholics have already consulted their conscience, are fine with the pill, and want it covered? This is not like abortion, a far, far graver issue…

….In other words, this is a potential political winner for President Obama, not just among liberals, many women, younger voters, and moderates—but among American Catholics! And even more so in light of the pragmatic compromise announced last week, which puts the administration precisely where it should be, and in a much better place than it was before the announcement, and reinforces Obama’s reputation as a man willing to compromise, one of his core strengths among independent voters. I found the original rule a step too far. To my mind, when religious institutions play invaluable roles in helping the poor, curing the sick, and housing the homeless, they should be rewarded, not punished. And within reasonable limits, their right to set their own rules on health-care plans should be respected. One reason they do such great work is their religious convictions. We should celebrate that—and try to balance their views (however wrongheaded we may consider them to be) with other legitimate social goals.

But some Republicans and conservative Catholics have already rejected the compromise.

Of course, the Bishops have rejected Obama’s plan – which leads to the question as to whether these numbers could change. Or whether, in the end, as Sullivan suspects, Obama is as dumb politically as Machiavelli.

Also be sure to read Taylor Marsh’s post HERE.

Rick McKee, The Augusta Chronicle

This copyrighted cartoon is licensed to run on TMV. Unauthorized reproduction prohibited.

Is it possible that American citizens, now under arrest in Cairo, were involved with a plot to partition Egypt into four smaller states? According to columnist Muhammad Dunia of Egypt’s state-run Al-Ahram, maps that were discovered during a raid on the Cairo offices of the U.S.-based International Republican Institute prove that at least some of the foreign NGOs operating in Egypt are actively involved with the scheme, which Dunia calls a long-term ‘American-Zionist’ project.

For Al-Ahram, columnist Muhammad Dunia starts off this way:

Over the past few days, some Western media have begun to revisit the old idea of a plan to partition Egypt based on the American-Zionist project to divide the country into four states.

The first would be in the Sinai, east of the Euphrates River delta, under Jewish influence. The second, with Alexandria as its capital and extending South to Asyut, would be Christian. The third would be in the Nubia region, and the fourth would be a Berber state with Cairo as its capital.

Up to now, some thought the ravings about this suspicious plot were for domestic political consumption only. But during the investigation into illegal funding of non-governmental organizations by Egyptian justice, maps were found inside an American non-governmental organization [the International Republican Institute] laying out plans to partition the country.

The subject wasn’t really a secret, as a scheme to divide Egypt into an Islamic State in the North and a Christian one in the South was leaked on the Internet not long ago. This is particularly dangerous because some international media have exploited the protests at the Maspiro TV station [by Coptic Christians - 27 were killed]. Certain analysts and researchers of Middle East affairs sought to revive the notion by posting partition maps on the Web. This demonstrates both foreign and domestic hands behind what is happening now in Egypt.

READ ON IN ENGLISH OR ARABIC AT WORLDMEETS.US, your most trusted translator and aggregator of foreign news and views about our nation.

Would the United States, utilizing what is known as a ‘false flag’ strategy, sacrifice a nuclear aircraft carrier to persuade the world that a war against Iran must be waged? According to columnist Anna Pinderak of Poland’s Wprost24, a theory is making the rounds that the Pentagon has sent the famed USS Enterprise to the Persian Gulf – to sink it – and then to blame Tehran for the crime.

For Poland’s Wprost24, Anna Pinderak starts out this way:

Is the United States using a “false flag” strategy to justify declaring war on Iran?

What is a “false flag” strategy? As the phrase suggests, it is a covert operation undertaken by governments, corporations or other organizations. The name derives from the military concept of “false colors,” i.e.: an operation conducted under a foreign flag. The goal of these operations is to blame the other side for initiating a conflict, whether it be a hostile country, organization or ethnic group.

Is it possible that the U.S. would go to such ends to find a pretext for open conflict with Iran? We all know that Washington can’t count on the U.N.’s blessing for another Middle East intervention: Russia and China, both equipped with a Security Council veto, wouldn’t consent to it. If the United States wanted to deal with Iran militarily, it would first have to convince them that Iran constitutes a threat to international security. Somehow, Washington would also have to convert international public opinion. After the experiences of Iraq and Afghanistan, few are convinced of the benefit of sending U.S. Marines into volatile regions. And everyone remembers that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, just like Iran today, possessed, according to American intelligence, weapons of mass destruction. But when the red, white and blue flag fluttered over Baghdad, it became clear that Saddam had no such weapons – and most likely could not have had them. No wonder the public treats all warnings about the Iranian nuclear threat with a healthy dose of skepticism.

READ ON IN ENGLISH OR POLISH AT WORLDMEETS.US, your most trusted translator and aggregator of foreign news and views about our nation.

And so we have the sight of Catholic bishops locking horns with the Obama administration over its principled view that all women need affordable access to contraceptive services and products, including the morning-after pill, which pro-lifers view as a form of abortion. This right happens to be a cornerstone of the Affordable Care Act.

The dust-up has Republicans adrool because it shows, in their view, that President Obama is anti-religion, something that they have said all along and gets sillier every time it is uttered.
–
A reasonable compromise would be to allow Catholic and other religiously affiliated institutions to outsource reproductive services for their employees to outside providers who do not have religious scruples, but the bishops are having none of that.

In this instance the guys in the funny hats are not on the side of the law. Secular laws trump religious beliefs, which is the reason that Mitt Romney could not take multiple wives if he was among the small minority of Mormons who still practice polygamy.

I happen to believe, perhaps naively, that a compromise will be hammered out sooner or later — and the White House did offer a fig leaf accommodating the church today — but not until the church and the Republicans have their fill of Obama bashing.

After winning a tiny sliver of voters in three states, Rick Santorum is in Texas talking to pastors: “There’s not a management problem in Washington, all right. There’s a more foundational problem there that goes to the basic concepts of who we are as a people. And those are deeply moral questions…

“I have seen the interaction with faith and public life and to me…there are not boundaries at all. I can’t and I won’t check my faith at the door because it motivates me to do things that I believe are best for our country.”

In 1960, a candidate named John Fitzgerald Kennedy told an assembly of ministers in Texas: “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute–where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote–where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference–and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him…

“I believe in a President whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.”

The GOP is moving toward demonizing Barack Obama, not only as the advance agent of European socialism but a devil’s disciple of the “secular left.”

Back in Washington, a Congress with 10 percent approval is hammering the President on a White House decision that health plans of faith-based organizations must cover contraception if they serve people of multiple religious backgrounds.

But the attacks may have dubious traction, as the Washington Post reports that “while Catholic leadership has blasted the new regulation, polls show that a majority of Catholics are actually more supportive of the provision than the rest of the country…”

MORE.

How should we characterize the impending end of Western military operations in Afghanistan? Was it a painful defeat, a hard-won success, or something in between? Columnist Danièle Fonck of Luxembourg’s Le Jeudi writes that nothing worthwhile has been gained by the Afghanistan invasion, and the soldiers who died – whether Westerners want to admit it to themselves or not – did so in vain.

For Le Jeudi, Danièle Fonck writes in part:

No war is good, because they transform human beings into professional killers. The one now taking place far out of sight, in Afghanistan, is no exception to this rule.

The initial goal being forgotten, the war is bogged down. Worse, it appears that once Western coalition troops depart, the barbarians will return to power. It is a sad lesson of history. You don’t impose your values on others with goose-down pillows you left behind.

Early on, the Occidental armada lost the battle to win the sympathy of the people. It despised the population. It failed to draw up plans for the future. And it has protected the superbly corrupt leaders in Kabul. It has committed one blunder after another. So now, behind every Afghan, Western troops sense a threat and no longer know who to trust.

Why then prolong the torment? Each passing day brings its own share of misery and death. It is pointless to bury soldiers who fall on the battlefield with all national honors; the fact remains that they will have died for nothing. That is the most terrible of defeats: to come home from war and know that the soldiers sacrificed and died for nothing.

READ ON IN ENGLISH OR FRENCH AT WORLDMEETS.US, your most trusted translator and aggregator of foreign news and views about our nation.

Bill Day, Cagle Cartoons

For a women’s magazine editor of half a century ago, the Planned Parenthood-Komen Foundation ugly furor recalls the time from introduction of the Pill when women, no matter what their circumstances, were without safe, reliable birth control and, before Roe v. Wade, had the choice of bearing unwanted children or being butchered by back-alley abortions.

From the start, those new alternatives, sanctioned by science and government, were fiercely opposed by those of strong religious beliefs, who were not above using scare tactics to discourage their use. Ever since, women’s bodies have been a political battleground

By 1965, with five million women on the Pill after five years on the market, there was no reliable research about side effects and possible long-term dangers. As editor of McCalls, I put up $15,000 to find out what members of the American Academy of Obstetricians and Gynecologists were seeing in their practices. They distributed a detailed questionnaire and analyzed the results.

Almost 7,000 gynecologists answered, and the overwhelming majority found oral contraceptives safe and effective. There were a few doubts that would become subjects of later study, but the clear result was to allay women’s fears about the Pill that were being spread by whispers.

In the early 1970s, Betty Ford was in the White House. Undergoing a mastectomy for breast cancer, she spoke about it in public and wrote an article for me to encourage women to go for early screening.

Back then, a generalized fear of the unknown bound both surgeons and patients into accepting radical breast removal as the only acceptable choice. But Dr. William Nolen, a surgeon who wrote a monthly column for the magazine, reported on the effectiveness of less drastic lumpectomies, combined with radiation and chemotherapy.

This was followed by the account of a writer who tracked down the surgeon pioneering the treatment: “I said ‘No’ to a group of doctors who told me, ‘You must sign this paper, you don’t have to know what it’s all about.’”

MORE.

Here is a contrast in current American culture between the place of the Cross and the Double-Cross as Barack Obama underscores “Jesus’s teaching that ‘for unto to whom much is given, much shall be required’” as Trump, to whom much was given at birth, grabs for more attention with his childish hide-and-seek media antics.

The President, delivering his political message “that I am my brother’s keeper, and I am my sister’s keeper,” goes out of his way to embrace the previous speaker’s criticism of those who bask in “phony religiosity” while failing to care for the poor or respecting those with whom they disagree.

Obama echoes a biographer of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, saying, “We can all benefit from turning to our creator, listening to him, avoiding phony religiosity…Our goal should not be to declare our policies as biblical. It is God who is infallible, not us.”

The pastor and theologian Bonhoeffer, who was killed by Hitler in the waning days of World War II, had criticized the German Church for conferring comfort on believers while turning a blind eye to the inhumanity of the Nazis.

“Cheap grace,” he had written, “is the preaching of forgiveness without requiring repentance…absolution without personal confession.”

In Las Vegas, everything is cheapened and grace is sought only at the gaming tables…

MORE.

After listening to Newt Gingrich’s tasteless and graceless concession speech where he invoked the almost sacred words of both President Abraham Lincoln’s 1863 Gettysburg Address and of the signers of our Declaration of Independence in an absurd attempt to link himself to our Founding Fathers, I posted the comment:

Many feel that Gingrich — albeit he is the big loser in Florida — gave a pretty good “non-concession” speech.

I thought it was as imperial and grandiose as usual — perhaps even more than usual.

Especially his closing promise of pledging his life, his fortune and his sacred honor. Something right out of the Declaration of Independence.

I am only surprised he did not start his spiel with the words: “When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one person to sacrifice himself for the good of many, let it be Romney”

This morning I re-read that Declaration along with Gingrich’s speech and was tempted to further paraphrase excerpts of the Declaration to elucidate Gingrich’s grand allusions.

But I thought better of it — and I wish the former Speaker would also have done so.

Why?

Because, as Jennifer Rubin, quoting Gingrich’s obnoxious pledge of “My life, my fortune, my sacred honor,” put it so well this morning: “But he’s not doing any of that. And it’s quite an insult to American patriots who have said that and meant it.”

Because Gingrich has already sufficiently linked and grandiosely compared himself to Churchill, Reagan Margaret Thatcher, Charles De Gaulle, etc. and has even managed to use a campaign management disaster (failure to register in Virginia) to allude to the infamous attack on Pearl Harbor — an insult to all those who died and were injured there.

Because Gingrich has already unnecessarily and indecorously invoked ad nauseam the U.S. Constitution, the Gettysburg address, religion, patriotism, love for God and country — not necessarily for noble, unselfish reasons.

Take for example his “There’s no question at times of my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked far too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate,” to excuse or rationalize his infidelity.

Because, again quoting, Rubin:

Gingrich has been reduced to a smaller-than-life figure. He’s a guy with a lot of words and very little appeal, whose meanness got the best of him and helped to wreck his campaign on a heap of attacks, insults and downright vile accusations (the latest being his claim that Romney is hostile to religion).

Yes, Gingrich’s big loss in Florida was also a big reminder as to why he lost — and why we should not misapply our Founders’ and patriots’ words.

Image: shutterstock.com

Arab Spring revolutions created chaos which allowed terrorists organizations to act and obtain heavy weapons. Ironically the UN and NATO’s mission in Libya increased this chaos tremendously and unintentionally strengthened Al Qaeda groups in Africa.

The UN Report explained that “The governments of the countries visited indicated that, in spite of efforts to control their borders, large quantities of weapons and ammunition from Libyan stockpiles were smuggled into the Sahel region.”

We see the results all over Africa where violence has grown dramatically in the past six months. Various terrorists groups are causing havoc across Africa. While the groups are not directly connected, they all have validated links to Al Qaeda in Yemen.

al-Shabab has been operating in Somalia and crossing over to Kenya and Ethiopia. Forces from the neighboring countries of Kenya and Ethiopia are battling Al Shabab along with Ugandan forces and western help.

The map of Somalia tells the story. The country has been without a functioning government for decades, and the southern and central regions are in the hands of al-Shabab.

Nigeria is caught in a series of terrorists’ bombings which target the Christian community of the country. Boko Haram, another Al Qaeda connected terrorist group, is trying to make its point that it cannot live side by side with people from other religions. In their view, Nigeria must become an Islamic state or else suffer endless terror attacks. Boko Haram killed more than 500 people last year and more than 250 this year in Nigeria.

The U.N. report said Nigeria was not the only country worried about the activities of Boko Haram. It said the group also was in Niger, adding that some governments believed Boko Haram members from Nigeria and Chad had received training at al Qaeda training camps in Mali in 2011.

While Boko Haram is currently focusing on Nigeria, it has documented ties to Al Qaeda according to the report – “Although Boko Haram has concentrated its terrorist acts inside Nigeria, seven of its members were arrested while transiting through the Niger to Mali,” it said, adding that they possessed documents about explosives manufacturing, propaganda leaflets and contact details for known al Qaeda members.

These terror activities are of increasing concern to the Western world. The vast deserts and loose governmental control in Africa makes it a perfect base for Al Qaeda, Boko Haram and Al Shabab. A recent attempt to attack US and European ships on the Mediterranean, foiled by Algeria, demonstrates once again that the goal is global Islamic domination and Africa is just a convenient base.

Western leaders and the UN back Nigeria in its war against Boko Haram. Through the U.S. military’s Africa Command, established in 2007, the Americans are already training and equipping armies in Algeria, Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Senegal and Tunisia. On Oct. 14, U.S. President Obama sent another 100 U.S. troops to Uganda in East Africa. Africa has become the front line of the war against terror. Let’s hope 2012 will be calmer than 2011 as stability is crucial in the war against terror.

Sunday Gingrich gave us some venom to go, in the parking lot of a Florida mega-church with a Starbucks in the lobby, tagging Mitt as a “pro-abortion, pro-gun-control, pro-tax-increase moderate from Massachusetts” with “money from Wall Street” to spread lies about him, “as big an outrage as I’ve had in my career.” (Aside from that, Mrs. Romney, did you enjoy the Sunday service?)

Nationally, a new poll shows Newt’s Southern strategy, which won South Carolina. is not only fading in Florida but destroying his candidacy nationally. Head to head, Romney leads Obama by a percentage point, 48-47, but the President hammers Gingrich, 54-40, a turnaround of 17 points since early December.

“Gingrich’s efforts to win the Republican nomination,” says a political scientist, “have set back his efforts to win the general election.” Appealing to Tea Party conservatives has “moved him out of the mainstream of American politics.”

As a blowout loss looms in tomorrow’s Florida vote, the former Speaker is turning up the volume full blast in retirement complexes, touting Herman Cain’s endorsement and that of Michael Reagan, the Gipper’s son, but the hard-of-hearing may not be enough to save him.

MORE.

His administration mishandled this decision not once but twice. In the process, Obama threw his progressive Catholic allies under the bus, strengthened the very forces inside the Church that sought to derail the health care law, and created unnecessary problems for himself in the 2012 election.

This might not have mattered if Obama had presented himself as a pure secular liberal. Before he was elected and after, he held himself to a more inclusive standard, reassuring many religious moderates.

His deservedly celebrated 2006 speech on religion and American public life was a deeply sophisticated and carefully balanced effort to defend the rights of believers and nonbelievers in a pluralistic republic.

Obama’s speech at Notre Dame’s graduation in 2009 was another tour de force. His visit to South Bend was highly controversial among conservative and right-wing Catholics. Yet the address he gave temporarily silenced many of his critics because it showed both an appreciation for the Catholic Church’s contributions to American life — particularly through its vast array of social-service and educational institutions — and a great instinctive feeling for Catholic sensibilities.

In the health care law, Obama annoyed some in his liberal base by making sure that Catholic institutions do not have to perform or pay for abortions. Yet rather than praising him for this, the bishops and the Catholic right invented the idea that the health law does cover abortion.

It doesn’t, as Sister Carol Keehan, president of the Catholic Health Association, insisted. In backing the administration’s view on this, she braved attacks and discipline from the bishops. That’s why it was unconscionable for Obama to leave her hanging out to dry.

At issue in the new controversy were regulations promulgated Jan. 20 by the Department of Health and Human Services as to which medical services should be covered by insurance policies that will be supported under the Affordable Care Act.

In its interim rules in August, HHS excluded only those “religious employers” who primarily serve and employ members of their faith traditions. For the Catholic Church, this had the effect of exempting churches from the rule, but not most Catholic universities, social-service agencies and hospitals that help tens of thousands of non-Catholics.

It made perfect sense to cover contraception as a general matter. Many also see it as protecting women’s rights, and expanded contraception coverage can reduce the number of abortions. While the Catholic Church formally opposes contraception, this teaching is widely ignored by the faithful. One does not see many Catholic families of six or 10 or twelve that were quite common in the 1950s. Contraception might have something to do with this.

As a Catholic, I wish the Church would show more flexibility on this question. But as an American, I understand why its leaders felt that the broad contraception mandate encroached on the Church’s legitimate prerogatives. The administration should have done more to balance the competing liberty interests here.

And it was offered a compromise idea by Melissa Rogers, the former chair of Obama’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. (Rogers and I have worked together on religion and public life issues over the years, though I played no role in formulating her proposal.) On The Washington Post’s “On Faith” forum in October, she pointed to a Hawaii law under which “religious employers that decline to cover contraceptives must provide written notification to enrollees disclosing that fact and describing alternate ways for enrollees to access coverage for contraceptive services.” The Hawaii law effectively required insurers to make such coverage affordable.

Unfortunately, the administration decided it lacked authority to implement a Hawaii-style solution. The Obama team should not have given up so easily, especially after floating this compromise and getting a sign off from some Catholic groups who thought it could be workable. The administration had months in which it could have tried to find middle ground. It’s a mystery to me why they didn’t encourage their friends on both sides of this question to reach a settlement. “The tensions and the suspicions on each side of the religious divide will have to be squarely addressed,” Obama said back in 2006. “And each side will need to accept some ground rules for collaboration.” I wish the president had tried harder to find them here.

E.J. Dionne’s email address is ejdionne(at)washpost.com. (c) 2012, Washington Post Writers Group. This column is licensed to run on TMV in full.

That reference and subsequent references to Alinsky surely puzzled viewers of a certain age and probably many viewers of all ages. This is because Alinsky, a legendary community organizer, died in 1972.

Translated, Gingrich’s dog-whistle demagoguery is:

I am sure that a threateningly ethnic and Jew boy name like Saul Alinsky will resonate with Southern Republican voters. Oh, and Barack Obama was a community organizer in Chicago like Saul Alinsky, whose views are at the heart of all that is wrong with our great republic today, and like Saul Alinsky, the man whom I will oust from the White House is an anti-religious radical who demeans our great republic. Did I mention that ours is a great republic?

I happen to think that Alinsky was not a radical although he considered himself one. His Rules For Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals, was one of the most influential books that I read as a young man in educating myself on outside-the-mainstream politics and philosophies. Published shortly before Alinsky’s death, it is a handbook for community organizers.

Alinsky writes in the prologue that: “What I have to say in this book is not the arrogance of unsolicited advice. It is the experience and counsel that so many young people have questioned me about through all-night sessions on hundreds of campuses in America. It is for those young radicals who are committed to the fight, committed to life.”

Now it so happens that Obama did once work in a Chicago community organizing project inspired by Alinsky, but there the similarities end, which Gingrich should well know if he is the student of history that he claims to be.

Alinsky, it turns out, was a deep believer in grassroots democracy and institutional religion. He frequently quoted Jefferson and Madison and was disdainful of 1960s leftists who burned American flags. He did much of his work with the active support and resources of the Roman Catholic Church. Yes, the same religion that Gingrich converted to when he married Callista Bisek. Three religions and three marriages, but so little time.

In 1969, Alinsky received the Pacem in Terris Peace and Freedom Award, given annually by a coalition of Catholic groups in the Midwest to commemorate an encyclical about human rights and alternatives to war written by Pope John XXIII. Most honorees have been ardent reformers of one faith or another. They include Martin Luther King, Jr., Desmond Tutu, Cesar Chavez, Daniel Berrigan and Lech Walesa. Oh, and Mother Teresa.

That’s our Newt. Terrific demagogue and lousy historian.

Back in September of 2009, I started one of my several articles on the Afghanistan War as follows:

As the fighting in Afghanistan intensifies; as that war claims more and more casualties; and as critical decisions loom on national objectives, strategy and corresponding troop levels and deployments there, the debate also intensifies.

As the war has continued unabated and has indeed claimed more and more young American lives; as critical decisions still needed to be made and as the debate on that war continued to rage, I wrote additional pieces, some questioning the war.

Today — call me a flip-flopper if you wish — as our stay in Afghanistan exceeds a decade and has already surpassed the duration of the Soviet occupation of that country; as our goals become less clear, our strategy (and mission) more muddled, our politics (and policies) more befuddled and our casualties (and financial costs) more intolerable, those questions are turning into concern and doubts.

After taking out Osama Bin Laden, after virtually destroying the al-Qaeda leadership in Afghanistan and many Taliban leaders and after some disturbing developments in that country, I have concerns for our troops, concerns for our success there, and concerns for the economic distress our country finds itself in — in no small measure because of the enormous costs of our military involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Most recently, I referred to some of those “developments,” including corruption and backstabbing at the highest levels in the Afghanistan government, incompetence of and disloyalty among its military and police and continuing human rights violations.

While examples of corruption among Afghan government officials are numerous, the most recent and most grievous example of backstabbing at the highest levels occurred only three months ago when Afghan President Hamid Karzai said: “God forbid, if ever there is a war between Pakistan and America, Afghanistan will side with Pakistan.”

Karzai also said:

“Afghanistan will never forget the welcome, the hospitality, the respect, and the brotherhood showed by the Pakistani people towards the Afghan people… Pakistan will never betray their brother.”

There are additional and more recent examples.

Two weeks ago, Karzai denounced alleged abuses at the main American prison in Afghanistan — a prison that, according to the New York Times, “plays a key role in the war effort, housing almost all the detainees that forces from the American-led coalition deem ‘high value,’ including Taliban operatives” — and demanded that Americans cede control of the site within a month. (“The prison, at Bagram Air Base, is one of the few in the country where Afghan and Western rights advocates say that conditions are relatively humane.”)

The Times:

… the Afghan commission that documented the abuses appears to have focused mainly on the side of the prison run by Afghan authorities, not the American-run part, according to interviews with American and Afghan officials.

Mr. Karzai was, in essence, demanding that the Americans cede control of a prison to Afghan authorities to stop abuses being committed by Afghan authorities.

The $60 million prison was built and paid for by the United States to replace an older prison that was “the site of well-documented abuse cases.”

A recent Wall Street Journal article describes how the Afghan “Police Undermine [the] Fight Against [the] Taliban” with the lead-in, “In the American war against the Taliban, on whose side are the Afghan police? For many U.S. soldiers serving in the insurgent heartland, the answer is: both.”

And:

They smile to our face when we’re here, giving them money and building them buildings,” says U.S. Army Capt. Cory Brown, a provost marshal officer helping to oversee Afghan security forces here in volatile Paktika province. “But they’ve given insurgents money, food and even rides in Afghan police cars.

Worse, he says, some policemen are also suspected of selling their U.S.-provided weapons to the Taliban.

More recently and even more insidious, the Salt Lake Tribune reports:

U.S. and other coalition forces [in Afghanistan] are being killed in increasing numbers by the very Afghan soldiers they fight alongside and train, in attacks motivated by deep-seated animosity between the supposedly allied forces, according to U.S. and Afghan officers and a classified coalition report obtained by The New York Times.

A decade into the war in Afghanistan, the report makes clear that these killings have become the most visible symptom of a far deeper ailment plaguing the war effort: the contempt each side holds for the other, never mind the Taliban. The ill will and mistrust run deep among civilians and militaries on both sides, raising questions about what future role the United States and its allies can expect to play in Afghanistan.

The Tribune continues:

The violence, and the failure by coalition commanders to address it, casts a harsh spotlight on the shortcomings of U.S. efforts to build a functional Afghan army, a pillar of the Obama administration’s strategy for extricating the United States from the war in Afghanistan, said the officers and experts who helped shape the strategy.

The above attests to the increasingly difficult and dangerous task our brave troops face in Afghanistan.

As a matter of fact, a recently released Marine Corps guidebook, “Afghanistan, Operational Culture for Deploying Personnel,” written for our troops serving or preparing to serve in Afghanistan warns them:

For centuries, this has been the paradox of warfare in Afghanistan: “The more enemies you kill, the faster you lose. Because of badal (revenge), the Pashtun have a saying: ‘Kill one enemy, make ten.’”

According to the Washington Post, “the 112-page, ‘for official use only’ manual gives a clear description of the complicated Taliban enemy against whom U.S. troops have been fighting and the Afghans who are fighting alongside U.S. forces,” and ominously warns “In neither case is the picture reassuring. Nor do the manual’s recollections of the U.S. experience in Vietnam ease current concerns of those who lived through that war, that history may be repeating itself …The Taliban insurgent is certain that it is God’s will that he fight to eliminate the Afghan infidels in Kabul and drive the foreign infidels (you) from Afghanistan.”

The manual also warns of corruption among officers and such being especially “endemic” in the police.

While questions and concerns about our policy and strategy in Afghanistan abound in my mind, there is absolutely no question about the bravery and dedication of our troops serving there — notwithstanding some much-publicized exceptions. More about these heroes, later.

Image shutterstock.com

And I’ll say: “Ditto.” Ditto to what the column says. Ditto to his reccomendation to the newspaper publisher. I worked for several newspapers over the years as a contributor and as a full-time staffer and any publisher who advocated that would quickly lose his advertisers and readers and be shunned by everyone in the business.

Not all printed, obscene porn has to do with sex.

Oh: and retraction reshmaction. The original column forever discredits its writer.

A Sikh ready for the holy bath at Golden Temple in Amritsar in northern India.

Ever heard of a place where you can enjoy live Western classical music round-the-clock? Perhaps there is none. However, if you are interested in attending a non-stop Indian classical music concert round the year, then the place to visit is the Golden Temple (or Harmandir Sahib) at Amritsar in northern India. This place is the rallying point of the followers of Sikh religion worldwide. Music wafts across with different musicians (Ragis) taking turn to sing … The acoustics are superb and BOSE speakers dot the huge complex.

The total number of Ragas (melodic modes) used in Sri Guru Granth Sahib is 31. At the temple, one can feel the atmosphere charged with a remarkable sense of service and humanity. A huge constant flow of people, nearly 100,000 every day and night, offer prayers at the sanctum sanctorum and partake free food at the Golden Temple complex. It is a unique sight, and experience, not seen anywhere else in the world.

One can lounge anywhere in the area surrounding the Darbar Sahib (the sanctum sanctorum) and the Sarovar (the pond). We enjoyed the Kirtans/Ragas from different spots…even right inside the Darbar Sahib where the holy Guru Granth Sahib is kept (and where you can also see the Ragis), and also from the first and second floor of the sanctum sanctorum.

The generous use of gold at Darbar Sahib is well-known in the world (donated by Sikh ruler Maharaja Ranjit Singh of Punjab/Lahore). The floral and decorative art work on the walls, domes and doors is exquisite. No deity or human form … but the best from the Hindu and the Islamic art has been displayed.

On the second floor of the sanctum sanctorum, I could see an inscription in Urdu on one side of the marble floor. I asked those present if anyone knew Urdu so that I could understand the meaning. No one knew this exquisite language (once the language of undivided India’s elite class) that is now becoming extinct.

Later I learnt that most of the art work was done by Muslim artisans, mainly from Agra (home to the Taj Mahal). Many well-known Muslim musicians used to sing kirtans at the Golden Temple before India got divided and Pakistan came into being in 1947. The highly universal and accommodating nature of the Sikh faith is reflected in the Guru Granth Sahib, as also the Golden Temple and other gurdwaras.

In many cities of the world I have seen newly-arrived Pakistanis and others enjoying free board and lodging for days at the gurdwaras.

Every state in India has thousands of holy places and temples belonging to different religions. They have their magnetic pull and beauty. I visit only a few selected ones. I am not exactly excited at the thought of visiting religious places because of the general confusion, noise and lack of sense of cleanliness and hygiene… …

My visit to the Golden Temple was an eye-opener … Such devotion, cleanliness, good free food, music, peace and tranquility. And with no one in particular enforcing order or discipline!!!