Todd Akin

A group of clergymen visited Missouri Congressman and US Senate candidate Todd Akin’s district office to address his claim, first reported at RWW, that “at the heart of liberalism really is a hatred for God.” The groups Faith in Public Life and Faithful America have reached-out to local faith leaders to respond to the Congressman’s statement and helped organize the meeting. Akin however did not attend, citing prior commitments, and stood by his claim that liberalism is rooted in the hatred of God. Beau Underwood of Bold Faith Type reported on the attempts to win a “real apology” from the Congressman:

In response to Rep. Todd Akin's recent, insensitive comment that "at the heart of liberalism is a hatred for God," a group of clergy from Akin's district visited his office today. In light of his failed attempts to justify his statement yesterday, the group of faith leaders sought a real apology from their Congressman for the disrespect his remarks showed towards their religious commitments. Instead, the Congressman sent a staff person to meet the group, while refusing to address the substance of his offensive remarks.

Outside of his office, clergy members spoke out against Akin’s extreme rhetoric:

Last week, Brian first reported that in an interview on the made-up controversy surrounding NBC omitting “under God” from a broadcast of the Pledge of Allegiance, Missouri Rep. Todd Akin declared to the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins that “at the heart of liberalism really is a hatred for God.”

Akin’s remark, unsurprisingly, has not gone over very well with religious leaders in Missouri, with one group passing around an online petition demanding that he apologize.

But Akin is not backing down. First, a spokesman told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch tried to “clarify” his boss’s comments, saying that Akin was just talking about general philosophical differences between liberals and conservatives about the role of God in government:

Akin Communications Director Steve Taylor said the point Akin was trying to make was that there is a basic difference between the tenets of liberalism and conservatism. Conservatives believe rights are granted by God and it is the responsibility of government to aid in protecting them, Taylor said.

“Liberals believe rights are granted by government,” he said. “Congressman Akin believes those two concepts define the basic debate between the two ideologies.”

Akin’s comments were off the cuff, Taylor said, and with more time to articulate his point he could have “provided a more artful answer.” But he wasn’t talking about anyone’s individual relationship with God, Taylor said, only the “defining principles of two political ideologies.”

Then, in an interview yesterday with a Missouri radio station, recorded by Think Progress, Akin refused to apologize, saying he just meant that liberals have “a hatred for public references for God.”

Listen to Akin’s original remarks here:

Akin: This was something that was done systematically, it was done intentionally, and is tremendously corrosive in terms of all of the values and everything that’s made America unique and such a special nation.

Perkins: Why would NBC do this?

Akin: Well, I think NBC has a long record of being very liberal and at the heart of liberalism really is a hatred for God and a belief that government should replace God. And so they’ve had a long history of not being at all favorable toward many of things that have been such a blessing to our country.

…

Akin: This is a systematic effort to try to separate our faith and God, which is a source in our belief in individual liberties, from our country. And when you do that you tear the heart out of our country.

Last night the Family Research Council hosted a webcast entitled "Mission Compromised: How the military is being used to advance a radical agenda" which featured several members of Congress along with Religious Right activists discussing both efforts to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell and efforts to allow abortion at military facilities. 

In this first clip, Oliver North tells Tony Perkins that conservative, home-schooled kids who read the Bible instead of looking at porn will stop joining the military if DADT is repealed because it will eventually lead to NAMBLA members being allowed to serve:

Next up is Rep. Todd Akin who tells Perkins that our military actions have always been just, but that if we allow abortions to take place at military facilities and gays to serve openly, the fundamental justice of our military will be lost:

In this next clip, Perkins and Army Sgt. Benjamin Ratliff claim that letting gays serve would cause real problems for soldiers because they might be reluctant to "spoon" in a life-threatening situation because they might have concerns about the guy next to them:

But no clip better exposes the utter fradulence and fatuousness of the right-wing campaign against DADT's repeal than this. First you have the AFA's Bryan Fischer claiming that allowing gays to serve would cause all those with good, conservative Christian values to leave the military; this has been a favorite right-wing talking point, but it is entire undermined by Sgt. Ratliff himself, who states that even if DADT was repealed, he would continue to serve and would urge others to do so as well because even though he would disagree with it, he loves his country more:

The Right’s rhetorical war on the judiciary reached its fever pitch in 2005, when Congress broke a vacation to intervene in the Terri Schiavo case. To take one example from many, Rep. Tom DeLay, then House Majority Leader, declared that the judiciary had “run amok,” warned, “The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior.” He later added, “Our next step, whatever it is, must be more than rhetoric.”

Since then, Congress has changed parties, and DeLay, tied to a corrupt lobbyist and indicted in Texas for laundering campaign money, is out of office, and so it feels like the pressure has been dialed down a notch. At least, that’s how it seems to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:

"Particularly since the 2006 election, I am pleased to relate, rapport between Congress and the federal courts has markedly improved," Ginsburg said at a meeting of American and Canadian judges in Vancouver.

No bills limiting judges' independence have been introduced in the current Congress and "one sees far fewer broadsides against 'activist judges' reported in the press," Ginsburg said. … She recounted with distaste comments about judges made in 2005 by two Texas Republicans, then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and Sen. John Cornyn.

Cornyn had expressed his “concern” that there might be “some connection” between “unaccountable” judges and violent attacks against members of the judiciary.

While far-right members of Congress like Todd Akin continue to introduce legislation to tamper with the courts—such as his bill to impeach judges when Congress disagrees with their opinions—Justice Ginsburg is right that, without right-wing leadership in Congress, such efforts will lead nowhere.

Unfortunately, while the days of the “nuclear option” and Tom DeLay are behind us, the current status may be the calm before the storm, when a future Supreme Court nominee or even just the politics of the presidential debate will likely cause tensions to flare again. GOP candidates have pledged to appoint Supreme Court justices in the Scalia-Thomas mold, and at the recent Values Voter Debate, second-tier candidates--including religious-right favorite Mike Huckabee--pledged support to a court-stripping measure.

“In ’08, it’s all about the judges,” as Rick Scarborough stated recently.