It’s Sunday, and perhaps an appropriate time to check out the latest from the Hawaii Christian Coalition.
I’m not sure which aspect is most interesting/disturbing. There’s the description of the Hanneman campaign’s attempt to persuade Christians to cross over and vote for him in the primary, and pushback from the GOP
It has come to my attention that Christians are being courted by Ken Wong of the Mufi Hannemann Campaign for Governor into thinking that Christians should vote in September 18th’s Primary Election on the Democrat ballot for Mufi Hannemann to retard the chances of a Neil Abercrombie win rather than supporting Duke Aiona through both the primary and general elections. I have been anguishing over those who believe that there is PURITY OF INTENT behind this strategy since hearing about it 3-4 weeks ago from a close pastor friend. I have delved in the Word and consulted many of my Christian mentors and counselors. I cannot find righteousness in this approach and certainly it is coming from a campaign that has conducted itself unethically, immorally, and far below reproach as we have seen with its recent comparison mail piece.
.
There’s the clear description that Aiona’s campaign is defined primarily in terms of self-defined Christians against the rest of us, seen as “the unrighteous enemy.”
We need to fearlessly, like David did Goliath, run towards the unrighteous enemy. Duke Aiona’s Campaign for Governor is the Body of Christ’s opportunity to operate in the AUTHORITY and to be proactive.
Then there’s the realization that this long missive with its bible quotes, talk of the “Kingdom”, and accusations that union political endorsements constitution an “unholy OATH”, comes from Republican State Chair, Jonah Kaauwai and is simply being redistributed by the Christian Coalition.
With more than 400,000 Christians in the State of Hawaii, WE are responsible no matter what the outcome of Duke’s race because we have been given the POWER and the AUTHORITY in the NAME OF JESUS!!!!
God bless you all! If you have any questions do not hesitate to call me on my personal cellular, 620-5702.
Aloha ke Akua — Jonah
Jonah Ka’auwai, Chairman
Hawaii Republican Party
Separation of Church and State?
That’s obviously not what these folks believe.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This is to Christianity what the Taliban is to Islam.
“we have been given the POWER and the AUTHORITY in the NAME OF JESUS!!!!
. . .
Jonah Ka’auwai, Chairman
Hawaii Republican Party”
Somebody needs to coin a term to describe those overly phobic about God and religion. Theophobic?
I’m not phobic about God and religion.
I worked for a religious organization for a long time, as staff and volunteer.
I am phobic about those who don’t understand that their religion is just that–their own religion, and is not the only religion, and it does not have a monopoly on the meaning of shared values. It gets worse when they openly express the view that they should capture government power to implement their own particular, limited view of religion, which they believe to be the only legitimate religion. Yes, in that situation, I am phobic. But I don’t think overly so.
I think the Star-Advertiser secular humanist-types (DePledge’s post on the same Jonah sermon) and some of the reaction by the left give the GOP and Jonah waaay too much credit.
If the GOP leadership was being strategic about the Governor’s race, why have general election contests in Democratic legislative strongholds throughout the State (for example, why put up token and extreme opposition to Central Maui’s Shan Tsutsui and Joe Souki [the other Central Maui house seat has appointed Rep. Gil Agaran running for the first time so challenging him is not a bad idea even if Kahului is full of Democrats who voted for Cayetano, unpopular as he was over Lingle in 1998])? If the GOP was strategic for the gubernatorial race, why force Tsutsui and Souki to mount “real” campaigns to get out the Democratic faithful even more than they would?
If the GOP were trying to really take over government, they would have recruited real candidates in the legislative districts and not just paper thumpers. The 400,000 Christians in Hawaii are NOT all Republicans (and that includes folks sitting in the large Evangelical Nondenominational New Testament meetings) and they’re not gonna vote lockstep anymore than union members voting for the endorsed picks.
In the world I grew up in, if Jonah was a real God-fearing, Bible believing Christian, he wouldn’t be in support of a Roman Catholic (let alone a Mormon), at least not in the edifying language used in his sermon to the GOP faithful (the lapsed cradle Episcopalian from northern New York, of course, even if still partaking of the Eucharist, would be no better than a former Catholic who attends services in a building where priests can marry; now Schatz is a different matter if you believe the Abrahamic promise still applies that if you bless God’s people then you will be blessed). Politics make strange bedfellows for Evangelicals to embrace Dukie in the language Kaauwai uses– Roman Catholics remained a mission field when I was a kid in a fundamentalist church. As Mitt Romney discovered, a Mormon still ain’t considered a “Christian” in certain GOP Religious Right circles.
If the GOP strategists think the Religious Right obsession with gay rights is the winning issue, then I can understand why they think Neil is an easier contrast to the “independent leader” (his “rise and shine” commercial can’t even openly disclose Duke is a REPUBLICAN). But unless “Christian” voters go along with the notion that nothing is more important than keeping gays in the legal closet — and even the Hawaii Family Forum candidates questionnaire included questions on poverty and housing — I think it’s dangerous to assume that Duke will fare better against Abercrombie among “Christian” voters. Except for civil unions, I don’t think Mufi and Neil differ widely on issues important to Democratic Party coalition members (afterall the public worker unions split between the two of them– with the educators in UHPA and HSTA going with Neil and HGEA and UPW siding with Mufi)– and last I saw, as all the Kolea types trumpet here and other blogspots, Hawaii remains a Democratic Party stronghold.
I think it shows the GOP leadership has not only been preaching to the choir but basically evangelizing (and polling) only in the pews.
Ian if you’re phobic about people’s views dominating policy. Then my friend your Progressive Left is far, far more dangerous than the Judeo Christians that built this country, or the Ancient Hawaiian moral codes that built these islands (metaphorically speaking).
I am not phobic about God. I am phobic about what is too often done in His name.
What has been done in God’s name is but a toothpick compared to the sequoia of death and destruction done by those that deny him. Please! Hitler, Stalin, Mau. Tens of millions killed. (and don’t give me the BS of Hitler’s faith…Nazism is not in the name of God).
Where’s your numbers?
To deny that Hitler committed such atrocities in the name of God is to deny history. Even as a Christian I can recognize that.
Please! Get a grip on history. Please name a single time when anyone in the Nazi party did any singular act in the name of Jesus. You can’t find one. I’ll give you that Hitler was a Christian. So what? Did he commit his atrocities in the name of Jesus? Heck no. Sorry.
Kimo,
At first glance, your argument that Hitler did not act in the name of Jesus (or “God”) seems reasonable. But that is looking at the events from today and NOT as they developed. The Nazi movement presented itself BOTH as a revolutionary AND conservative movement. The revolutionary violence was justified as providing the discipline Germany needed to rebuild the “nation” on TRUE German traditional values, which were “lost” with the cosmopolitan Austro-Hungarian empire and, especially, with Germany’s defeat in WWI. The only way Germany could reassert itself was to recalim its essential “Germanness”, which was identified as Aryan. And the foundation for rebuilding Aryan society was to strengthen “Kinder, Kirche und Küche” (Children, Church and Kitchen).
Just because today’s “conservatives” (or, as I continue to call them, “reactionaries”) replicate many of the same themes as the Nazis does not make them fascists. But fascism IS a tendency within many modern rightwing movements. How close it would resemble European fascism of the thirties and forties depends upon a lot of dynamics. Some conservatives will recoil from the more extreme expressions of the rightwing movement. Others will likely justify them as necessary “under the conditions.”
The Christian “dominionist” orientation behind the Transformation Hawaii grouping which has embraced both Aiona and Hannemann, believes Christians should dominate society and use instruments of government to impose “God’s will” on the rest of us.
So yes, the line between “church and state” in the minds of many Christians has become very blurred and SOME explicitly deny it.
Good writeup, Kolea. Clearly, any large movement, good or evil, requires some type of moral underpinning. Even the Left’s great God, Mother Earth, provided the moral authority to move forward its great Global Warming Religion and the subsequent attempt to control nearly every living and energy consuming entity on the planet. It too was unified by a moral drive: in this case to save the planet.
But let’s be clear: the Nazi movement wasn’t a theocracy as some attempt to ascribe.
I differ with your assignment of Nazis to neo-conservatives. Today’s conservative movement is based on founding American principles of limited, self-governance. The National Socialist Party is far closer to the American Left by a wide margin.
Hi Kimo,
You still there? Obviously, you and I are far apart on many things, so it is difficult to have a conversation when the very words we use mean different things to each of us.
And we are now being buried deep down in the thread of a largely abandoned post. But since we are being polite, let me respond to some of your points in the HOPE you will find them and in the hope we can find some common ground. Or at least, agree to disagree.
I agree it is probably a mistake to call the Nazi movement “theocratic.” There were deeply non-rational, mythic ideas which helped carry the movement along, some of which had religious, or quasi-religious components. But the relationship to Christianity was quite strained, to say the least.
And a clarification on my view. I do not compare the Nazis to the “neoconservatives.” But neither do I use the term “neo-conservative” when talking about the “new conservative” movement. I think we lose a lot when we broaden the use of that term beyond its original self-designation.
I strongly recommend the Wikipedia entry on “Neo-conservatism.” It is a good overview, though I disagree with the author’s as I think they inpute too much sincerity to the neo-cons and I view them as less principled, more Machiavellian:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-conservative
FInally, and we DON’T have time for this. The Nazis WERE on the Right. I am familiar with efforts of some on the Right to try to fudge the historical record and claim the Nazis were actually “leftists,” but that denies the reality of the movement and its supporters. The right has to take resoponsibility for the Nazis, just as the left has to take responsibility for Hitler, Pol Pot and the Shining Path. This does not mean all conservatives are Nazis or semi-Nazis. Or that all leftists are potential Stalins. But both outlooks have to pay serious atention to the tendencies inherent in SOME of their thinking which has historically lead to such horrible consequences.
You might prefer to focus on the language of “Liberty” and “small government” being voiced by many of today’s conservatives but many of the same people, most of the same funders and most of the politicians supported by these conservatives were extremely supportive of the authoritarian, civil liberties suppressing, enlargement of State Power under George Bush. Obama has continued many of the disturbing policies of the Bush era, so I will not cut him an excuse. But why was Bush a “conservative hero” immune to criticism from conservatives for the first six years of his administration, but suddenly, Obama is a “fascist”?
Clearly, there are libertarian trends within the conservative movement. But there are also authoritarian trends. Just as there are “populist” slogans for protecting the “little guy” from the DC bureaucrats, while much of the funding for these efforts is actually coming from powerful corporate interests who do not give a d@mn about the “little guy.” But who will use the labguage of “liberty” to rally frightened middle-income ordinary folks against any government regulation of their abuses.
The Nazis held forth an idealized vision of a unified German society, built upon the “traditional” family, exagerated stereotyped gender roles and the manly disciplne and violence necessary to ensure the fulfillemnt of that vision against those who threatened it, mainly the Jews, the social democrats, the liberals, the unionists, the Gypsies, foreigners, decadent artists, the anti-war activists, the homosexuals, etc. The enemies list bore a striking resemblance to one conservatives around the world would draw up. It is NOT a list the left would compile. ANd it is hard to construct a definition of fascism which would not include a heavy emphasis on strident nationalism, whcih while common on the right, is absent on the left, except perhaps in small countries struggling for control of their own destiny.
The Nazis also glorifed State Power, especially military might. US progressives might call for more government regulation, but they don’t love the State. They see it as a necessary agency, but are skeptical it will not be used more by corporate interests than for the popular good. Conservatives only seem to dislike State power when it challenges corporate power or enforces civil rights legislation. Or when it is headed by Democrats.
There are Youtube videos with both the tall guy and the republican guy at an evangelical convention speaking and gaining support. It is the same evangelical group who tacitly support the Ugandan laws that would imprison or put to death homosexuals in their country. Enough for me to resist in the extreme.
Their collective mission is to take over Hawaii’s political landscape by exploiting their christian church members. That is an honest assessment not a disparagement of any believer. Lets just hope the Christians think for themselves.
As far as separating church and state there is a real rule for non profits that they may not support or campaign for any candidates. That is all non profits as far as I know. And that includes churches. Now, if they speak in parables and stories and prey, oops sorry; pray to smite the enemy in so many couched words then there is interpretation involved and a judge or jury or the IRS would have trouble prosecuting the offense and removing their tax exempt status.
As far as the Hawaiian culture they deserve respect just like any indigenous culture. The result of not having such respect was shown by the statues of Buddha seen being blown up by the Taliban in Iraq.
This, my friends, is the Land Of Aloha. Do atheists ever feel the Aloha Spirit? Maybe, if they are lucky.
Does any religion have a special connection to the almighty? Simple answer, not in my opinion. Complex answer, listen to Bob Dylan’s “With God On Our Side.”
God and jezusss?! puleeeze save me from yer followers. Those politically inclined, and those not.
thengew vurrymush.
I honestly believe that political apathy, and to an extent subscribing to prevailing stereotypes about elected officials, strengthens support for the conservative right.
For many voters, it is difficult to look past an elected officials stance on a controversial issue if that stance doesn’t line up with his or her beliefs. Most aren’t able to objectively look at the accomplishments of a particular elected and recognize that he or she has represented the interesest of their district well. There are several reasons, but here is the short list.
1) Short memory: voters have difficulty remembering what it was like prior to the current elected’s term of office.
2) Lack of Understanding Majority Rule: the average voter has a nebulous (at best) understanding that anything short of a Republican uprising will result in very little (if any) CIP money for an area represented by a right-wing elected.
3) Greener Grass: without a body of work (both voting on legislation or addressing constituent concerns), the challenger will look more appealing than the incumbent 7 out of 10 times.
4) Lack-cess: Only a small % of constituents actually have contact with an elected official. Many constituents do not contact an elected’s office when they have a concern. Part of it may be resignation (perhaps they were soured by a previous experience), part of it is that their elected may be inacccessible, but for the most part constituents don’t know that they can call their elected when they have a concern. And finally…
5) Stereotypes: I know of at least one legislator that many members of the community (and even some staff) don’t believe is a legislator because she looks too young. That is, she doesn’t fit their expectations of how a legislator should look. Other examples would include all politicians being crooked, all Democrats are tax-raising liberals, all Republicans are anti-environment, etc. We are all guilty of this, but it ultimately undermines our ability to look at candidates carefully.
In the end, an election takes us back to high school–we vote for the captain of the football team or the ridiculously “gifted” cheerleader. This election, the pro-444 are the fat girl who is beatiful on the inside and the 110 lbs. pimple- faced bowler. It’s a shame.
As for Jonah, he’s a poorman’s Micah Kane. God bless him.
It’s also good to see Dr. Conklin posting here (kuaku–that’s Hawaiian for sarcasm, but he knows that).
Certainly, there are elected governments in the world that are essentially theocracies, with no apparent separation of church and state. Try Iran.
Yeah, let’s be like Iran. Burl, I love your sense of irony, or would that be “Iran-y”?
Good to see Conklin not separating or knowing the difference between cultural, spiritual and religious. And he doesn’t know that.
Iran-y… Good one! And yes the active radical christian right Ed Silvoso support for Aiona is disturbing also in that he appears to accept that support. No theocratic leanings in our public servants please.
“Christians dismiss 9,999 other religions as false. Atheists dismiss just one more then that…”
Duke is distancing himself from the e-mail:
http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=13069260
It used to be that the Christian Coalition/ Christian Voice types tried to wage a stealth campaign. They would wait until the Sunday before the election to publicize their endorsement list, which they would pass out to “the elect” by putting them on their windshields in the Church parking lot.
Because so many people vote early absentee, this is forcing the “stealth” campaigns to come out into the open earlier. So there is more time for the message to escape from its narrow intended audience and be broadcast to the general public.
Aiona was fully happy–and remains happy–that bible-thumpers have received Jonah’s email. He just now has to distance himself from it to create “plausible deniability” for consumption by the general public.
Kolea, how do you know that Duke is “fully happy” that Jonah’s email went out? How do you know that Aiona’s statement is merely for “plausible deniability” rather than a heartfelt reaction to Jonah’s email? Have you spoken to Duke (or anyone close to him) about this matter? If so, when and to whom did you speak?
Come on, Keoki. I have worked on campaigns. I don’t have to have been in the room to outline to you what is happening here. The GOP operatives around Duke see there is an effort by the Mufi campaign to get social conservative voters to take Democratic ballots. Mufi has long sucked up to the religious conservatives. It is sincere and goes back a long way. Witness his dance during the whole Civil unions debte. He didn’t want to alienate moderate Democratic voters. PArtly because he needs them for the general IF he wins the nomination. And partly because he might be able to win over some “on-the-fence” Democrats for the primary if he cam maintain his cool and convince them he is an effective administrator who “gets things done.” That was his plan. Split the difference on civil unions.
He has now decided to increase the effort to attract conservative religious voters against he secular humanist, hippie radical haole Neil Abercrombie. He would like his PUBLIC campaign to just allude to that sort of criticism through coded words, while the stealth, informal campaign works the religious networks with more firebreathing, bible-thumping words. All the time HOPING that appeal goes unnoticed by moderate voters.
So Aiona’s people assess the situation. They prefer that Neil win the Democratic nomination. That way, they can run against a “hippie radical” (just like Mufi) and hope to pull enough of the centerist voters to give Duke a margin of victory. So Mufi’s GOTV among religious conservatives conflicts with the strategy of the Aiona campaign.
Ergo, Jonah’s letter.
Oooops, it got exposed to the light of day. Backpedal, distance yourself from it. After all, as Jonah said, it was a PRIVATE communication.
If any of this rings untrue to you, let me suggest you don’t understand local politics very well.
But, no, I wasn’t there, in the room, when these conversations took place.
A short while ago, Ed Case had urged Republican voters to cross over to vote for Neil as a means of weakening “the Machine”. All this “strategic voting” being advocated by unprincipled politicians. Let the Democrats and those independents who sincerely support one of the Democratic candidates, pick the Democratic nominee for Governor. Let the GOP-inclined voters pick their champion. Then let them duke it out in the fall and let “the best man win.” Not because of sneaky appeals by campaign operatives urging voters to vote insincerely.
Frankly, none of this strikes me as “righteous” behavior, but sometimes people believe everything is “righteous” if you’ve got “God on Your Side.”
So, Ian, how long until Keith Rollman is outed as the ding-a-ling behind Hannemann’s Island Values charade? The evidence is all over the web…you just have to put together the pieces. Atomic Monkey, Compare & Decide, now Island Values…you have to wonder if Hannemann has a full set of marbles for associating with this guy.