COMMENTARY: Understanding the faith of Cathy McMorris Rodgers

SPOKANE, Wash. (RNS) The Republican response to President Obama’s State of the Union speech introduced many Americans to Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers. While those of us in Spokane are already familiar with our congresswoman, little is known about her alma mater, Pensacola Christian College.

Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington speaking at the 2013 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Maryland.

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., speaking at the 2013 Conservative Political Action Conference in National Harbor, Md. Photo courtesy of Gage Skidmore via Flickr

This image is available for Web publication. For questions, contact Sally Morrow.

A brief introduction to PCC might help illuminate some of the formative ideas that have shaped the faith and religious views of this rising star within the GOP.

Study of the Bible is a major concern at PCC, and every student is required to take Bible courses. The treatment of the Bible at PCC is somewhat extreme. The Florida school has a particular (and peculiar) attachment to the King James Version (published in 1611), noting on its website, “it is our practice to use only the Authorized Version (KJV) in the pulpit and in classroom instruction.” Their obsession with the KJV is at odds with scholars who consider dozens of alternative English versions (the New Revised Standard Version, for example) to be more faithful translations since they, unlike the KJV, are based on more ancient (and reliable) biblical manuscripts.

Academic or scholarly approaches to the Bible seem to be shunned at PCC. The seminary associated with the college seems to relish this lack of an academic approach: “Pensacola Theological Seminary has a biblicist approach in its graduate Bible program in contrast to the pseudointellectual approaches of our day. In an attempt to be academic, many focus on teaching erroneous views of liberal theologians. The goal of our Bible program is not to fill our students’ minds with doubts and questions raised by liberals, but rather to fill our students’ souls with the Word of God itself.”

So it’s not surprising that not one of the faculty who teaches the Bible at PCC is a trained scholar in biblical studies. None of the “Bible” faculty are members of the world’s largest and most established academic guild of biblical scholars, the Society of Biblical Literature. Dan Rushing, dean of the Division of Biblical Studies at PCC, does not have a Ph.D. in biblical studies, and he received all four of his degrees from PCC and Pensacola Theological Seminary.

Throughout the college there seems to be a lack of academic rigor. Of the 117 full-time faculty at PCC, only 13 (11.1 percent) have Ph.D.s. Perhaps even more noteworthy is that 89 of their faculty received at least one of their degrees from PCC. Far from welcoming or valuing external perspectives, PCC embraces its exclusionary mindset: “Without meaning to be unfriendly or unkind, we feel it only fair to say that Pensacola Christian is not a part of the ‘tongues movement’ and does not allow students to participate in or promote any charismatic activities, nor do we permit students to promote hyper-Calvinism.”

Although McMorris Rodgers graduated with a B.A. from PCC in 1990, the school itself was not accredited until last year. Its accrediting body, the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools, itself had difficulty receiving federal recognition. Its first such attempt (in 1987) was denied, and its successful effort in 1991 followed a federal advisory panel’s repeated recommendations to the contrary. In the mid-1990s TRACS was placed on probation for 18 months.

TRACS currently accredits 55 schools, including Bob Jones University, Epic Bible College, Hillsdale Free Will Baptist College, Shorter College, Visible Music College, and the Seattle School of Theology and Psychology (formerly Mars Hill Graduate School). Schools seeking to be accredited must supply “a biblical foundation statement,” “a mission statement,” and a “Christian Philosophy of Education” statement.

In its accreditation manual, TRACS offers schools a series of suggestions to include in their biblical statements: “The unique divine, plenary, verbal inspiration and absolute authority of all sixty-six canonical books of the Old and New Testaments as originally given. The Bible is the only infallible, authoritative Word of God and is free from error of any sort, in all matters with which it deals, scientific, historical, moral, and theological.”

In its 14 articles of faith, Pensacola Christian College echoes many of these same sentiments. It states, for example, “Eternal hell was created for Satan, his demons, and people who do not believe in God.”

Religion is the only subject in which some people are proud of believing the same thing at age 40 that they believed when they were 6. It is the only field in which development in critical thinking is seen by some as regression. With religion, people think their opinion is as legitimate as a trained professional. And the consequences are not merely academic: People unwilling to engage in a critical study of religion or the Bible are destined to worship a God and Jesus of their own making.

This peculiar brand of nonthinking religion might help explain how a person of “faith” might vote against giving women equal pay to men (Lilly Ledbetter Act), or vote against including gays, lesbians, Native Americans, and immigrants as people that should be protected against domestic violence (Violence Against Women Act), or vote to cut food to hungry children and the elderly.

Matt Rindge photo courtesy of Gonzaga University

Matt Rindge photo courtesy of Gonzaga University

This image is available for Web publication. For questions, contact Sally Morrow.

It might also help explain how a person of “faith” might embrace idolatry in viewing Christianity and the American dream as one and the same. As McMorris Rodgers said on Tuesday: “With the guidance of God, we may prove — proves ourselves worthy of His blessings of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

(Matthew S. Rindge is an associate professor of religious studies at Gonzaga University. He is currently writing “Cinematic Parables: Subverting the Religion of the American Dream.” Follow him on Twitter at @mattrindge.)


The post COMMENTARY: Understanding the faith of Cathy McMorris Rodgers appeared first on Religion News Service.

28 Responses to “COMMENTARY: Understanding the faith of Cathy McMorris Rodgers”

  1. nickbatt

    The USCCB (the Catholic Bishops In the US have stated:” We believe people have a right and a duty to participate in society, seeking together the common good and well-being of all, especially the poor and vulnerable. Our Church teaches that the role of government and other institutions is to protect human life and human dignity and promote the common good.
    “Peace” alone cannot be the ultimate aim of a civilized society. Stalin’s Russia and Mao’s China had peace but lacked any protection for human life or dignity. Sometimes resistance to injustice is warranted. As Rev. Martin Luther King, quoting St. Augustine, wrote in his Letter from the Birmingham Jail. “An unjust law is no law at all.” Thus it follows “that whenever any government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it”
    As I noted above the government has intruded on the dignity of people by denying their freedoms of speech, religion and privacy. Acquiescence in these violations for the sake of or in the name of peace is wrong.

  2. Michele Joseph

    I’m glad you posted that passage, Christy. I can’t wait to read this book.
    I’m glad it clarifies that neither the right nor the left have a monopoly on social domination, and to be trying to prove that one does,is, in itself, social domination, and furthermore, it’s that straw-man you spoke of.
    Who does it is not the point.
    The point is, is that it happens, it forces an argumentative, adversarial
    tone to social discourse. Verbal combat in social situations is discourteous an
    inconsiderate. It’s fighting & that’s rude.This may be fine for a court-room ( even there they’ll draw the line) , but in social situation, it does nothing to advance the cause of peace.
    And peace is the ultimate aim of a civilized society.
    Live & let live.

  3. Christy Besozzi

    Per Dr. Altemeyer in his book The Authoritarians:
    “That is the Great Discovery of social psychology. Experiment after experiment demonstrates that we are powerfully affected by the social circumstances encasing us. And very few of us realize how much. So if we are tempted by all the earlier findings in this book to think that right-wing authoritarians and social dominators are the guys in the black hats while we fight on the side of the angels, we are not only falling into the ethnocentric trap, we are not only buttering ourselves up one side and down the other with self-righteousness, we are probably deluding ourselves as well. Milgram
    has shown us how hard it is to say no to malevolent authority, how easy it is to follow the crowd, and how very difficult it is to resist when the crowd is doing the biding of malevolent authority. It’s not that there’s some part of “No” we don’t understand. It’s that situational pressures, often quite unnoticed, temporarily strike the word from our vocabulary.” – Dr. Robert Altemeyer, The Authoritarians, pg. 237. (The Milgram experiment and results are described on pp. 229-237)

  4. nickbatt

    If Stalin and Mao, leaders of the two largest Communist states, both of whom were genocidal super-stars, weren’t Leftist I can’t imagine who would be. As for Hitler, his party was the “National Socialist Party”. He used the same kind of state control over business to build the Volkswagen and the Autobahn that are typical of Leftists everywhere.
    Having read the Altemeyer piece before my last comment; I’ll just repeat that it contains no evidence. It refers to studies but doesn’t include them. They may be out there but before I’d judge his thesis I’d want to see them. I would note that the piece is honest enough to list some of the criticisms of it. One of them was its left wing orientation. I realize that it’s difficult to craft sociological experiments without philosophical bias so that’s not fatal to its validity.
    As for the Founders, I have repeatedly cited our founding documents and writings as my basis of argument. In this case they are the true anti-authoritarians. Because, as I believe, we are all sinners, any form of government or economy should contain safeguards against all the vices which are demonstrated by man. Hence Madison’s quote in Federalist 51 “If men were angels no government would be necessary”. Within the natural law tradition 2 kinds of laws malum per se (that which is bad by its nature) and malum prohibitum (that which is bad because we agree not to do it eg don’t drive left of center). Other than traffic laws etc all laws (which are things that are malum per se) make a moral judgment. Don’t kill; don’t lie; don’t steal etc so when somebody say that another “wants to impose their will/values/religion” I wonder what law they think wouldn’t do that. Or when they object to somebody for having a “Christian” voting record. Many of our great revolutionary social movements have been inspired by the Christian worldview eg The Abolition of Slavery and the Civil Rights Movement.

  5. Michele Joseph

    Yes, Denis.
    Something that (at times) helped me find compassion for my mother
    when she was alive, was to mentally compare how imprisoned she
    was to how liberated I am.
    She had to be right. Would fight to the death. As I grew older,( and I
    mean middle-age), I became more detached & began to be able to
    see that she was TERRIFIED to be wrong and/or not in power. It was
    bondage for her.
    For me, I do not have to be right. Nobody’s right all the time, so “so
    There is one thing I won’t tolerate, and that’s meaness.
    And such people are nothing if they aren’t mean.
    I will get really into it with them.
    In 2006, my ex ran out the door with nothing but the clothes on his
    back and went back to his mommy.
    I hate bullies. I mean HATE.
    We’re not supposed to hate, but I do.
    I’m trying to grow up, and be more patient, but it’s taking way too long.

  6. Michele Joseph

    Yes. Church is a favorite place for such people.
    That’s why I hestitate to draw a link to any particular denomination ot political
    I think it’s simply a matter of where the power is, whatever serves their interest.
    The object of the game is to be in a place of eternal rightness, and the rest
    of the world in eternal wrongness.
    The goal is to be “King if the World”, so to speak.

  7. Michele Joseph

    Yes, Christy, that’s a good point. It just may be that personalties who are
    power-mad simply align themselves with whatever position offers the most
    power at the moment, simply dragged around by the winds of fate.
    We’ve all seen the politician who will vote for something one day, and switch
    parties the next.
    Such opportunists have no reall principles,as simply follow what will get the
    the biggest return today.
    It’s sad to think of a life of such deprivation & weakness, never to to the power & steadfastness that is borne of tru devotion, to just run this way & that dragged about by the leash of ego.

    • Christy Besozzi

      RE: opportunists. Exactly. The Social Dominators (per Dr. Altemeyer) use the authoritarian followers – even so far as to going to church to give the appearance of being religious – in order to get and stay in power. When you get that book (The Authoritarians), first read about the authoritarian followers before you get to the chapters about the Social Dominators (the authoritarians).

  8. Christy Besozzi

    “Authoritarian followers” is not an oxymoron. Read Dr. Altemeyer’s book to see the definition in social science terms. Dr. Altemeyer has a bit different usage of the terms “left” and “right” when it comes to authoritarian followers.
    Authoritarians (I’m talking generally, here) are individuals who want to impose their beliefs on people, but are rather irrelevant until such time as they get a bunch of followers. Yes, Stalin and Mao Tse Tung were murderous authoritarian thugs, but it is questionable if they really were so much “left” as just murderous authoritarians who used their communist states to impose their horrendous ways on others. Hitler was not a leftist; he used the leftists in Germany to gain power, then once he got that power, he turned on them.
    To Nick: I don’t know where the comment about America’s founders came from in your comment and I honestly don’t recall anyone denouncing them. (???)
    And, mental illness can happen to anyone of any race, religion, economic bracket, education level, or political party, etc. In my estimation, it’s too serious a problem to individuals for anyone to throw that out as a cause of this or that theology or political ideology. It’s too inclusive a term to be able to do so (“mentally ill” could mean to some people those who are psychotic to those who have an anxiety disorder).
    In all the evidence that Dr. Altemeyer presents about authoritarians and authoritarian followers, he speaks of personality types, but does not label anyone “mentally ill”.

    • Denis Eble

      Wikipedia says this about Dr. Altemeyer’s theory:

      “Right-wing authoritarians are people who have a high degree of willingness to submit to authorities they perceive as established and legitimate, who adhere to societal conventions and norms, and who are hostile and punitive in their attitudes towards people who don’t adhere to them.”

      There is a link that I see between the political authoritarian and the religious authoritarian. When reading the quote above, think of fundamentalist religion and the two fit like a hand and glove.

      Think of religious instruction. The religious authorities tell the conscript what to believe and what not to believe. Further tell tell them the rewards as well as the punishments for that belief. Often they are warned to be weary of those with a different belief. They base these beliefs on the Holy Book, an authority source because the authority says so.

      The consequences of religious zealotism are written in blood in our history books and we need not detail them.

      It’s all about Authoritarianism and the men with the righteous swords.

  9. Michele Joseph

    Hi Denis !
    What a fascinating topic you brought up !
    I have never considered possible correlations between religious affiliation
    and personality disorder or political party & personality disorder.
    I can only refer to my own personal experience.
    I have many friends who are aligned toward religious fundamentalism,
    also many who lean right politically & they are all lovely people.
    But, then again, maybe because that’s because I only associate with
    nice people.
    Now that you brought this up, I see that there is a lot of research about
    this topic. I don’t know much about it yet
    I do have, however, a lifetime of experience dealing with this disorder.
    My own mother had it.
    The best information I have received in this regard is that the absolute most
    effective way to deal with such people is to ignore them.
    I know that this is VERY VERY hard to do, as their need for attention is
    colossal- insatiable- so they will go to great lengths to keep you engaged
    with them. They LOVE to argue and will do so to the grave, as it is the only
    communication style that offers the possiblity of a permanent spotlight.
    (another example is the filibuster)
    Every effort will be employed to keep you involved, primarily insults & endless
    objections. They will make every effort to get a rise out of you, and if you bite, they are getting what they want.
    This disorder is sometimes referred to as the “the criminal
    personality” For that reason, I generally don’t look for them among members
    of the political or religious right.
    I think they are more likely to be found among members of the criminal
    I personally think, and have seen from many other sources is that the very,
    very best strategy is to ignore.
    Ignore, ignore ignore.

    • Denis Eble

      “I know that this is VERY VERY hard to do, as their need for attention is
      colossal- insatiable- so they will go to great lengths to keep you engaged
      with them. They LOVE to argue and will do so to the grave…”

      Hmm. Ding! Ding!

  10. nickbatt

    Christy; I understand your position quite well. You find none of the examples of government over-reach to be authoritarian. They’re just a “Mish Mash”. What you worry about is authoritarian followers (quite an oxymoron). Yet every time I invoke the Founders (who were real revolutionaries fighting against real authoritarians) you or your allies denigrate them. I assume you think I’m an example of an authoritarian follower. Yet I’m here. I’m clearly a minority view. And I always say believe what you want. All I do is believe differently than you. Your intolerence of dissent suggests to me that you are the more likely candidate for the title “authoritarian follower”.
    Don; Please see my comments to Christy about who’s an “authoritarian follower”. And since you bring up “right wing” I wonder if you can imagine left wing authoritarians. Over the last century, Its been those folks who’ve caused the most problems: the followers of Stalin, Mao and Hitler.
    Denis; Fundamentalism? Personality Disorder? Your penchant for name calling never ceases to amaze me. Surely, from our previous conversations, you must recall that I’m the guy who defended the Catholic Church. I don’t know any fundamentalists (who are protestants) who would have taken that position. So I surmise that in your world “fundamentalist” is just another pejorative to use when logic fails.
    To all three of you; If you want to shut me up, quit saying such obvious balogney. You prove yourselves to be sycophants of the author who are unable to address the issues I raised: That it’s unfair to ascribe all the college’s views and its accrediting agency from 20 yrs ago to Rep. Rodgers. today; That truth does not evolve as we grow up (i find this view particularly offensive since it implies condescension to the poor stupid person who disagrees with your enlightenment). And that the Lily Ledbetter Act didn’t provide equal pay for women (which had already been the law for 40 years).

  11. Denis Eble

    My ‘blah, blah, blah!’ comment pretty well sums up what I have learned over the years of a few fundamentalist Christians. Not all, mind you, only the apologists. Many are good people who are sincere believers and humble in their religious expression and would never think of ranting and raging on a religious forum. Rev. Herzog easily comes to mind.

    Rather I believe we are witnessing the results of a personality disorder being played. It would not be honest of me to diagnose as I am not credentialed to do so, yet I have some knowledge of the disorder from an associate. These disorders, sadly, are never ‘cured’ but only managed at best. It is a life-long condition which hangs like a dark cloud overhead.

    There are numerous books and articles written about religious fundamentalism and associated disorders. Once again, let me state that religious fundamentalism does not necessitate nor assume a mental disorder. I am quite sure that there are mental disorders found in atheists as well- perhaps linked to them.

    Yet there appears to be a stronger correlation between religious zealotism and some form of mental disorder. It must be said, however, that there are many ‘successful’ people who live with and/or thrive from some form of personality disorder. Many examples can be found in the political arena.

    This brings up the topic suggested in this thread. How closely are politics and religion related? Or, how closely associated are religious fundamentalism and right-wing politics? Still further, we might ask whether some personality disorders are characteristically found linked to both religious fundamentalism and the far right-wing political agenda?

    Any thoughts?

  12. Michele Joseph

    Hi Don ! 🙂
    Nice to meet you !
    Hope you visit again & again !
    And O.M.G. !!!!
    Sam Harris !
    I just ordered ” The Moral Landscape ” yesterday !

  13. Michele Joseph

    Thanks for the book title, Christy !
    I’m going to order it tonight !

  14. nickbatt

    Christy; I agree that authoritarian ideology is a dangerous phenomenon of which we should all be aware because of it’s threat to the nation. We see it on college campuses where speech codes that limit free speech that dissents from the leftist ideology espoused by this author. Or when the IRS is used to suppress political speech by the Tea Party; the NSA to track our phone calls; and the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) used to violate the religious freedom of The Little Sisters Of the Poor, Hobby Lobby and others. In Canada it’s already a hate crime to oppose gay marriage. That could be coming here if these authoritarians get their way.

    • Christy Besozzi

      Nick, I’m afraid you are not fully understanding what the studies show about authoritarians that Dr. Altemeyer describes.

      But the most concerning thing about authoritarians are the people who follow them – the authoritarian followers.

      Your examples of supposed authoritarians are a mish-mash, it appears to me. I’d say that the Hobby Lobby case is where the owners of Hobby Lobby are the authoritarians; they are trying to force their religious beliefs on their employees.

      • Don Bortle Jr.

        Christy ~ I’m pretty well read on the authoritarian personality and their cult like followers and look forward to reading Robert Altemeyer’s pdf which I have just downloaded.

        As far as nickbatt is concerned, he doesn’t want to understand the points you are trying to make. I would consider him, from the right wing talking points he has thrown out already, to be one of those followers you previously mentioned.

        Some books you may find quite compelling are:
        ‘American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America” by Chris Hedges.
        ‘The End of Faith’ by Sam Harris
        ‘’With God on Their Side” by Esther Kaplan
        ‘American Taliban’ by Markos Moulitsas

        They may be less contemporary then your suggestion, but they all touch on the authoritarian religious political model as well as some predictable outcomes.

        And if you happen to read this comment Michele, I have one thing to say: “You go Girl !”

  15. Christy Besozzi

    RE: Authoritarians. Social scientists have been studying the phenomena of authoritarians and their willing followers since Nazi Germany. One of those is a professor at Canada’s McGill University by the name of Robert Altemeyer (since retired, I believe). He wrote a book about it that is free online (and I think you can buy it through Here is the website: The home website is:

    This book about who authoritarians are – and most important – who their willing followers are – is enlightening. It should be read by everyone. He has a nice sense of humor, too.

  16. nickbatt

    Denis; You should your mouth out with soap too. There’s no need for that “definition” here. And “blah, blah…” doesn’t add much to the discussion.
    Michelle: I agree that our culture is becoming feminized. Drugging little boys who won’t sit still in school, Not keeping score in games so nobody’s feelings will be hurt. Suspending boys for playing with half eaten pop-tarts because it looks like a gun. Everything but estrogen shots.
    And your right too, that men don’t care about health care. Things will be so much better if the federal government does something. Oh, that’s right, they did and premiums have gone up and almost 100 million families will lose coverage by year’s end and those folks who signed up have no idea if they’re really covered. Definitely more balanced.
    With all that going on we wont be able to find the will to fight a war till the enemy captures Detroit. I say let them have it and we’ll all sing kumbaya

  17. Michele Joseph

    Yes, Denis, I think this has been the chronic scourge for women, not just now but for ages past, exhibiting in many nations, cultures & religions.
    It stands to reason that a male-dominated society would be more heavily influenced my male hormones.
    Sometimes, it seems as though we have reached a point of terminal testosterone toxicity.
    I think in a society that’s more balanced in it’s influences,we’ll find that
    we will be less inclined to go to war,less aggressive, more inclined to
    I see it swinging in that direction, with the rising concern for the weak,
    interest in improving health-care,etc.
    Soon things will be more balanced

  18. nickbatt

    Don; My, My, did kiss your mom with that mouth? Idiots,incestuous, biased, epitome of hubris, authoritarian right wing, domininists, distorted, and VagHag. Well, I notice you barely mention my central point that it’s unfair to attribute all the college’s views to her. You only claim “the institution that helped form her worldview and in turn help the reader to better understand her thinking process” but you state no basis for that claim. My experience has been that people are formed by lots of experiences. Just maybe her MBA from the University of Washington or her service in the state legislature where she was known for her support of workers in the timber and mining industries which dominate her district. But I guess you wouldn’t even consider the 13 years she spent working at the family fruit stand as important as her undergraduate experience at PCC. No young girl might want to go to college in Florida for some sun and beaches. It had to be to learn the King James translation of the Bible. Well, you tell yourself whatever you need to sleep at night. Whatever formed her view, the people of her district found her good enough to elect her 5 times. But they’re probably all total idiots who are incestuous authoritarian right wingers too.
    As far as I know she has yet to introduce legislation to make America a Christian Theocracy. What a let down that must be to her constituents and yet they keep voting for her. Go figure.
    Finally I note that the Ledbetter case had nothing to do with “psychic powers”. The so-called Lily Ledbetter Act in 2009 did not require equal pay for women. That had been the law since The Equal Pay Act of 1963 and was expanded in The Civil Rights Act of 1964. Ms. Ledbetter, who was a supervisor got sub-standard performance reviews for 19 years. The facts in the case don’t seem to support your supposition that she didn’t know about her wage situation. In news reports she said she had known since at least 1998 and she never raised her ignorance of the matter in the case. She lost because the law said you can’t let things thing go for 19 years and then when you’re ready to retire sue for claims going back to when you were hired. The old law set 180 days as a statute of limitations. The new act only changed that. The act is about lawsuits not equal pay.

    • Denis Eble

      …blah, blah blah!

    • Don Bortle Jr.

      It seems that your being tired after your first comment, which was pretty ragged, has really affected the drivel that you dished out in this one. Why is it that you guys have to just make things up or twist and distort everything you touch. Is it because of faux noise?

      To begin with, as you neglected to mention that Goodyear tried your BS line about performance reviews and a jury of her peers found in her favor and awarded her all back pay plus damages, as she was entitled. Secondly, the case was appealed and overturned on the technicality that it was not filed in the required 180 day window as stated under the civil rights act. Thirdly, she DID NOT know about the pay discrepancy in that 180 day window and was only informed of it years later. Fourthly, she DID NOT receive 19 years of sub-standard performance reviews but only received poor reviews in the first two years in her management position and good reviews thereafter. Fifthly, the decision that was rendered by the supreme court was a 5 to 4 decision made up of some of the most right wing corporatists to ever sit in those seats. Funny how they found a way to let another corporate person get away with screwing over a real flesh and blood person. Try to name a case where any of the five have ever voted against corporate interests, yea I though not.

      The Act was about the 180 day window which was used to technically rob a woman of the equal pay that she was entitled to. Not voting for it would allow unethical corporate officials to again use the same technicality to rob from others by keeping the employee pay differentials secret past the 180 days.

      As far as being voted into office by her district, I can say that many people get elected that have no place in a national decision making position. I know that you right wingers love to throw Hitler around when you’re referencing the tyrannical President Obama but I’ll be a bit more judicious and use the “Half Governor Palin” as my example.

      Try looking at Rodgers oh so Christian voting record yourself dude:

      My final note on this subject is you were either lying about the facts that you represented or left out or you’re just another ignorant right wing flack that likes to listen to his own BS. Why don’t you let the world know which it is. I’d most likely

      PS All my Moms like me just fine, and thanks for asking.

      P.P.S. You seemed to have forgotten your standard right wing argument: Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi. . . . .

  19. Denis Eble

    Don- I needed to look up the tern, VagHag. Quite interesting and informative. I was then interested in clicking on the term, Vaginal Vampire which is equally informative.

    Here is the Urban Dictionary’s definition of Vaginal Vampire:

    Any person, group of people, or organization that through their speech, writings, and/or actions are implicitly attempting to control, direct, and/or subjugate a woman’s inherent rights to the control of her body, her mind, her sexuality, and medical choices made between her and her doctor. Most of these Vaginal Vampire attacks are veiled in authoritarian religious dogma and conservative political rhetoric in an attempt to steal and control the power of the Womb and/ or Woman.

    Right-wing conservative Christian movement? The thing I’ve always found so odd about that group of people is their split personality. They hate government interference in their life while legislating for more government interference in your bedroom. They seem to have this queer sex-fetish as if something went terribly wrong during adolescence.

    Does anyone else note this disconnect?

  20. nickbatt

    What a hit piece! The author bootstraps the beliefs of the college Rep.Rodgers attended 20 years ago and of its accrediting agency to her as though they came directly from her lips in the Republican rebuttal to President Obama’s State of the Union speech. His commentary drips with sarcasm and condescension that makes his devotion to the extreme Left patently obvious. Using pejoratives like extreme, peculiar, and obsession– all in the first two paragraphs, My son recently graduated from a college that taught courses in Feminist studies. in 20 years should he be tagged with what was taught in those classes he never took?
    As for his statement “Religion is the only subject in which some people are proud of believing the same thing at age 40 that they believed when they were 6.” which is highlighted elsewhere on this site, is just stupid. 2+2 was 4 when I was 6 and still is. By 6, I knew not to wet myself and I still can hold it (at least for the time being. lol.) . I knew apples tasted good and poison ivy was to be avoided. More importantly, at 6, I knew who made me (God made me). I knew why he made me (To love him and serve him in this world and to live forever with him in the next).
    In his final rant he wrongly claims that Rep. Rodgers opposes equal pay for women because she opposed the Ledbetter Bill—a bill which only deals with the technical issue of the statute of limitations. Equal pay has been law for thirty years.
    There’s more but I’m tired.

    • Don Bortle Jr.

      Nickbatt, me thinks you protest too much. The pejorative words used by the “extreme Left” author, happened in the third paragraph, at least the way they taught me to count when I was two years old. Your childish interpretation of his discussion of the evolving nature of “studies” because you learned not to eat poison ivy when you were six along with your other pathetic examples are all patently absurd. Let’s hope you evolved past 2+2=4 and onto such subjects as geometry, calculus, trigonometry, differential equations, physics, astrology, biology, etc. so that you have a better understanding of how our world works. How else would you keep yourself from looking like a total idiot if you thought the earth was 6,000 years old and that the Flintstones was a documentary?

      A couple of the points that Mr. Rindge was making are that PCC, when Rodgers attended, was a very insular and non-accredited institution. He also points outs it’s lack of intellectual vigor out side of their “belief” that “The Bible is the only infallible, authoritative Word of God and is free from error of any sort, in all matters with which it deals, scientific, historical, moral, and theological.”

      The incestuous nature of this institution coupled with their narrow and biased interpretation of the Bible, written and modified thousands of times by the hand of man, does not prepare anyone to deal with a society with hundreds of different religious institutions and over 200 denominations of Christianity. I guess that we can be thankful that the PCC doesn’t participate in the “tongues movement” but the fact that they don’t instill any “doubts and questions” about their teachings is the epitome of hubris. Hubris, a hallmark of many religious institutions, is one of the seven deadly sins.

      As the old song goes, “to know me is to love me” and the commentary points out many facts about the institution that helped form her worldview and in turn help the reader to better understand her thinking process. Although one can’t surmise everything about her from this one article, it certainly helps one’s understanding of her thinking process and brings some of her commentary into focus. When coupled with her voting record and other articles written about her rise in the authoritarian right wing movement, one can easily deduce that she, like many domininists, would be a happy warrior in the movement to remake America as a Christian Theocracy and prepare the way for the tribulation. Some may find this distorted political philosophy comforting, but I, as well as a majority of the America population, find it to be extremely disturbing.

      Regarding your attempt to brush off her vote on ‘Lily Ledbetter,’ the right wing corporatist wing of the supreme court used the “technical issue of the statute of limitations” to deny Lily Ledbetter the equal pay she deserved from her years working as a manager. The sole reason that it went beyond the statue of limitations is that Ms. Ledbetter had no psychic abilities to allow her to know that she was being discriminated against. A vote against this law was a vote against equal pay for women and a vote in support of the corporate monolith that is devouring the rights we Americans hold so dear.

      In conclusion, I personally think that Rodgers can most easily be defined by a single word from the Urban Dictionary and that word is “VagHag.” I am of course referencing the number one definition listed and not the more disgusting and misogynist ones that follow.

Comments are closed.