Trumpty Dumpty apparently believes that he never fell off the wall and that he’s still intact as head of the GOP. Maybe he’s right. One thing is certain, the 2022 senate primary campaign between Lisa Murkowski and her cartoonish opponent, Kelly Tshibaka, is going to provide some yardstick by which to determine whether Trump’s endorsement is as big of a deal as he thinks it is. The Hill:
“Murkowski has got to go!”
“Kelly Tshibaka is the candidate who can beat Murkowski — and she will. Kelly is a fighter who stands for Alaska values and America First. She is MAGA all the way, pro-energy, strong on the Border, tough on Crime and totally supports our Military and our great Vets. Kelly is a powerful supporter of the Second Amendment and JOBS! I look forward to campaigning in Alaska for Kelly Tshibaka. She has my Complete and Total Endorsement!”
Kelly Tshibaka, a Republican Senate candidate seeking to challenge Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski in 2022, once wrote in support of an “ex-gay” Christian organization that promoted discredited “conversion therapy” and said that homosexuality was caused by “sexual molestation during childhood.”
–
In an article unearthed by CNN’s KFile, Tshibaka wrote that gay people can “work through the process of coming out of homosexuality” through Christianity and urged gay people to “not be controlled by the ‘once-gay-always-gay’ rhetoric used to advance political agendas” in a 2001 Harvard Law School student newspaper article.–In other blog posts found by KFile that have since been scrubbed from the internet, Tshibaka said that the “Twilight” book and movie series “is evil and we should not read or watch it” because “entertaining and participating in these kinds of activities leaves us spiritually vulnerable. It also leaves us open to the enemy’s attacks.”
Trump in June 2020 vowed to campaign against Murkowski, a promise that was made after the Alaskan told reporters she was “struggling” with how she would vote in the presidential race.
“Few people know where they’ll be in two years from now, but I do, in the Great State of Alaska (which I love) campaigning against Senator Lisa Murkowski,” Trump tweeted at the time. “Get any candidate ready, good or bad, I don’t care, I’m endorsing. If you have a pulse, I’m with you!”
Tshibaka has a pulse and that’s how high the bar is to get a Trump endorsement. I must admit, I do like this level of honesty, especially coming from Trump who is the liar’s liar.
Only the best people. Another day, another candidate for the funny farm looking to rise in politics on the Republican ticket.
Back when the scholars appointed by King James 1/VII to translate the Bible, the word ‘tongue’ meant ‘language’ (as in a requirement in the Anglican Church to be ‘learned in the Latin and Greek tongues’).
Now what happened back at the original Pentecost was that the apostles/missionaries/disciples/whatever you want to call them were given the gift of speaking REAL languages – Aramaic, Coptic, Celtic, Greek, Latin – whatever so they could proseletyse in whatever language needed where they were going. They did NOT suddenly start sputtering totally random noises.
Fundamentalists have to start realising that God did NOT speak in, what was even for the 17th Century, archaic English – they have to accept that the meaning of words change over the years and don’t mean the same as they did some time ago with prime examples like ‘gay’ meaning happy and carefree, ‘queer’ meaning odd or strange or ‘camp’ originally ‘living in a tent’. Those are all changes in my lifetime – changes over 400 years are a LOT more than that.
Some nice examples if you go to youtube and listen to Eric Bogle’s ‘Silly Slang Song’
You are partly correct about “tongues.” Yes indeed at the original Pentecost, the apostles suddenly spoke the languages of all those people from different parts of the world who had come to Jerusalem for Passover. However, apparently Paul did not see tongues as limeted to “real” languages. “For one who speaks in a tongue speaks not to men but to God; for no one understands him, but he utters mysteries in the Spirit. “(1 Corinthians 14:2 RSV)
I would remnind you that the language of the KJ bible was deliberately archaic – even by early 17th Century usage and that Paul wasn’t referring to the events at Pentecost but he was writing a letter to the people of Corinth.
I would also refer you to verse 15: “If you are praising God with your spirit, how can one who finds himself among those who do not understand say “Amen” to your thanksgiving, since he does not know what you are saying?”
The King James was academic but colloquial for its day. There was no attempt to be deliberately archaic. The fact that Paul was writing a letter to the church at Corinth changes nothing. Verse 15 supports my point that the word “tongues” refers not only to “real” languages but also “spirit” languages.
Actually it wasn’t colloquial even for the period. It deliberately used archaic language to appear more ‘solemn’.
As for verse 15, Paul is, basically, saying “Don’t use strange words or nobody will know what you’re saying or when to say ‘Amen'”. Hardly an ‘encouragement’ to use jumbled sounds.
We’ll see how far FG’s endorsement goes. I’m hoping the people of Alaska will continue to support Murkowski, as they have in the past.
It doesn’t hurt that she’s blonde and pretty. (Yes, I do think the former guy is that petty.)
Eh, she’s probably got a portrait of herself stashed away somewhere that resembles one of the Elephant Man.
Whenever I see these sorts of headlines, I am always wary. In 2001 gay conversion therapy had not yet been discredited. The question is what does she think now. “Speaking in tongues” is neither here nor there.
If she has NOT recanted her earlier belief, then it remains her belief. She has done and said NOTHING to indicate she’s changed her mind.
As for the “speaking in tongues,” bear in mind that it’s just as much a dog whistle to the “right groups” as Reagan’s stories about “Cadillac-driving welfare queens” were. For a certain group of fundamentalist/evangelical Christians, it’s indicative of an accepted part of Christian belief. Some 20 years ago, it was a relatively non-mainstream aspect of Christianity (akin to snake-handling) but it’s become far more mainstream. Describing her as “speaking in tongues” will signal to a fair-sized audience that she’s a devout evangelical/fundamentalist Christian. The target audience won’t find it objectionable; those not in-the-loop will find her to be “nutty” but not dangerous.
The question then is has anybody even tried to find out if she recanted her earlier belief? Absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence. Besides, if you have been comment forums, lots of people don’t even acknowledge that Wallace and Byrd recanted their earlier racist views.
Thank you for you detailed explanation of of why the tongues thing is neither here nor there. There is nothing wrong with being a devout evangelical fundamentalist Christian. the problem is the number of such people who by their actions show they are actually Xtians. And if “nutty” but not dangerous, then again it has no business in the headline. Clearly the purpose was to use it to disqualify Tschibaka. She may indeed deserve to be disqualified, but to do so, somebody is going to have to spend more time on the homework.
Are we really sure she has a pulse? The fear of Twilight might be a clue?
“You don’t know what He (God) thinks.” Tommy Lee Jones uncle in No Country For Old Men. I believe if there’s a judgement, she will be condemned, as the folks in one of Jesus’s reported parables were for shitting on the poor. They asked, when did we not help you? He answered, when you did not help the poor & downtrodden. Funny. In the story the good folks asked when did they help him & he said when they helped the outcasts they were ministering to him. Uh oh spagettio.