Akin Wins Senate Nomination


One of the most virulently anti-gay and staunchly theocratic members of the House may be moving to the Senate. Todd Akin won the Republican nomination to challenge Sen. Claire McCaskill for her seat in November. Akin is a leading member of The Family and, as Right Wing Watch reports, one of the most far right people in Congress:

Akin gained notoriety after he told Perkins on his radio show that “at the heart of liberalism really is a hatred for God,” a remark he refused to apologize for.

The congressman is also a virulent opponent of LGBT rights, pushing a ban on same-sex unions of any form in the military and as Think Progress noted, has co-sponsored nearly every piece of anti-gay legislation in the current House session. He thinks that “the liberal agenda has infiltrated our military” due to the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and tried to overturn Washington, D.C.’s marriage equality law.

He took to the House Floor in 2006 with a warning that “anybody who knows something about the history of the human race knows that there is no civilization which has condoned homosexual marriage widely and openly that has long survived.”

In a documentary for Truth in Action Ministries, he claimed that the left “will snuff out the light of freedom” by “rewriting the history of America,” and warned that the health care reform law is “an unbiblical threat” that violated the Ten Commandments. Akin even believes that Medicare is unconstitutional, wants to eliminate the Departments of Education and Energy and the Environmental Protect Agency, wants to impeach judges for “making decisions not based on the U.S. Constitution,” and likens student loan reform to “stage three cancer.”

Akin said that Thanksgiving should be remembered as a day to renounce “unbiblical” socialism and that the U.S. should use the Pilgrim society as a model because the Pilgrims used the Bible as a “blueprint” for economic, education and government policies.

Yeah, they set up a theocracy. And that’s exactly what Akin wants. He also wants to ban the morning-after pill.

Comments

  1. says

    That’s the “one of the most far right people in Congress”? The only things that separate him from the pack are that he didn’t apologize (not even the “I’m sorry you’re offended” fauxpology) and he likes hats with buckles.

  2. mck9 says

    slc1: he hasn’t been too extreme for his district.

    Akin has been representing me in the House for years — or, rather, misrepresenting. This is not some rural backwater full of rednecks and Klanners. It’s a reasonably prosperous suburban area to the west and southwest of St. Louis. Though predominantly Republican, the St. Louis suburbs generally went for Obama in 2008 (I don’t know about Akin’s district specifically). I don’t know how Akin has stayed in office, except that the local Democrats are too weak to put up a strong candidate to challenge him.

    Claire McCaskill is widely regarded as the underdog, but reportedly her campaign welcomed Akin’s primary win. The theory is that he’ll be the easiest of the Republicans to beat because he’s the most extreme.

    At least he’ll be out of the House — though he’ll probably just be replaced by another Republican, though possibly not one so rabid.

  3. says

    “Akin said that Thanksgiving should be remembered as a day to renounce “unbiblical” socialism and that the U.S. should use the Pilgrim society as a model because the Pilgrims used the Bible as a “blueprint” for economic, education and government policies.”

    This would include public hangings of witches, I presume?

  4. D. C. Sessions says

    This would include public hangings of witches, I presume?

    We could start with the one who ran for the Senate from Delaware.

  5. gorgias says

    It was a pretty close race between three staunch conservatives in the Missouri primary, Akin being by far the wingnuttiest of the three. (Considering that one of his opponents was running ads proudly proclaiming Sarah Palin’s endorsement, that’s saying something.) And Claire McCaskill didn’t just welcome Akin’s primary win, she actually helped bring it about; she ran ads on local conservative talk-radio stations proclaiming Akin “too conservative” for Missouri; I know this because of friends and family members who told me this, citing it as the reason they proudly voted for Akin. So mission accomplished, Claire, you’ve guaranteed an opponent that has the smallest lead ahead of you in the polls, one who’s so batshit conservative that you barely have to do anything to get progressives to vote for you.

    But if Akin actually gets elected, we’ll all know who to blame for helping put this asshole in office. Besides the assholes who voted for him, of course.

  6. says

    Ed Brayton stated:

    “Yeah, they set up a theocracy. And that’s exactly what Akin wants”

    Leaving aside the numerous issues raised in the post and opening up a can of worms, I have always wondered what you consider a Theocracy? I see the term thrown around a lot and used very loosely. That can be very dangerous because if we call all efforts to influence government with Christian, Hindu, Muslim or any other religious ideas an attempt to set up a Theocracy we can get to where we are crying wolf and nobody listens when the real thing comes.

    Trying to influence government with religious ideas and having the church run the state are two completely different things. There is about a thousand different lines of thought in between.

    I read your post on Chris Rodda and Barton’s right hand man. I linked his response down below. But she got totally dismissed. This is not a good thing if her goal is to actually get the truth before the people she believes that Barton is wrongly influencing. Why was she dismissed? Her tone is hostile.

    I like her even though I disagree with her so I am going to research her more undeniable stuff and approach him from the angle of a Christian that is concerned that some sloppiness needs to be cleaned up. Calling them all liars is not going to accomplish that. Point being on this post that we have to be careful about hyperbolic claims. There are some of us trying and succeeding in changing things in the Christian Right for the good at the grass roots level.

    This type of stuff hinders that more than it helps. That is if the goal is to silence the people who are leading people astray and are never questioned in those circles. If you guys want them to be questioned things have got to be toned down.

  7. says

    Reverend Rodney stated:

    “This would include public hangings of witches, I presume?”

    Come on dude. You really think this guy supports that? That is an irresponsible comment.

  8. skinnercitycyclist says

    joewinpisinger1 said:

    Come on dude. You really think this guy supports that? That is an irresponsible comment.

    Apparently he does.

    Akin is coming right out to say that he would use his holy book, indeed, his highly sectarian reading of that holy book, as the template for civil government in this country.

    There is a big difference between that and someone such as MLK trying to apply broad humanitarian principles drawn not only from Christianity but from other traditions as well (e.g., MK Gandhi) to our public life.

    Do you recognize the difference? MLK’s position was accepted, not because he found inspiration for it in Christianity or in Gandhi, but because he was able to make a compellingly human case for rights enshrined in our secular Constitution. All Akin has is: “God said we had to in his book, and that’s good enough for me, humanity be damned.”

  9. dan4 says

    @9…health care reform law is an “unbiblical threat” that violates the Ten Commandments.

    That sounds pretty theocratic to me, Joe.

  10. slc1 says

    Re William Winpisinger @ #8

    He took to the House Floor in 2006 with a warning that “anybody who knows something about the history of the human race knows that there is no civilization which has condoned homosexual marriage widely and openly that has long survived.

    What civilization before the last half of the 20th century recognized same sex marriage?

    wants to impeach judges for “making decisions not based on the U.S. Constitution,” and likens student loan reform to “stage three cancer.”

    Shorter Akin: impeach judges who disagree with me.

    Nor surprisingly, asshole Akin is also a global warming denier and thinks that intelligent design should be taught in the public schools.

    In short, Congressman Akin seriously challenges whackjobs like Michele Bachmann, Allen West, and Steve King for the title of dumbest fucktard in the House of Representative.

  11. Yoritomo says

    What civilization before the last half of the 20th century recognized same sex marriage?

    I’d think of medieval Japan, which had the concpet of shudo, and while that’s not truly marriage, the author of the Hagakure compares those practicing it to committed spouses. Of course, Japanese civilisation is alive and well, and the earliest famous example of shudo I know of is 800 years old.

  12. alanuk says

    U.S. should use the Pilgrim society as a model because the Pilgrims used the Bible as a “blueprint” for economic, education and government policiesU.S. should use the Pilgrim society as a model because the Pilgrims used the Bible as a “blueprint” for economic, education and government policies

    I thought that the original Plymouth Pilgrims relied on State hand-outs for their survival.

  13. thisisaturingtest says

    He thinks that “the liberal agenda has infiltrated our military”…

    That word “agenda” has gotten to be such a buzz-word with these folks. It’s always something which the other side has, of course- they themselves would never think of having such a thing.

    …anybody who knows something about the history of the human race knows that there is no civilization which has condoned homosexual marriage widely and openly that has long survived.

    Easy conflation of “condoned homosexual marriage” and “[not] long survived,” as if the one was obviously the cause of the other. Aside from asking for examples, would it be fair to point out numerous examples of the opposite? societies which condoned heterosexual marriage, but which are also not still around? A silly point can be made to work both ways, and may be the only way to get across the silliness of the original.

    …wants to impeach judges for “making decisions not based on the U.S. Constitution…

    Who decides what the US Constitution means? Judges, correct? What he’s demanding here is either an oxymoron or a tautology, I’m not sure which.

  14. a miasma of incandescent plasma says

    @10 joewinpisinger1 says:

    Reverend Rodney stated:

    “This would include public hangings of witches, I presume?”

    Come on dude. You really think this guy supports that? That is an irresponsible comment.

    OK, let me try to explain this. You’ve come to a place called Freethoughtblogs a network, and you can argue over the definition of what is or is not considered “freethought”, of like-minded people that tend to gravitate towards one end of the spectrum on matters of social policy, religion, education, social-contract responsibilities, etc…

    So we’ve seen the words used by Akin above used by others over and over again. There’s really no “debate” that needs to take place in these comments as to whether these “ideas” that The Todd are saying are 1) factually accurate or 2) the best course for solving the issues at hand.

    So we match his ridiculous hyperbole with comic hyperbole to point out the extremes of what he’s suggesting.

  15. a miasma of incandescent plasma says

    joewinpisinger1 @10 As to your question,

    You really think this guy supports that (burning witches)?

    I’d have to say that until any religious person can give us a reliable, non-hypocritical, evidenced-based method of determining what is metaphor and what is literal truth in any holy document, especially what’s claimed by some to be the most important book ever written, we have to take what these people say at face value.

    So when they say they want to “get back to” (they really mean “institute for the first time”) biblical principles, how else are we supposed to treat the first 3 commandments (a direct ban on the worship of other gods/religions) except as a direct threat to the 1st amendment? How else are we supposed to look at someone saying social policy should be based on the bible when the bible commands the death of gays and adulterous wives and female rape victims (and, yeah, even witches)?

    Sure, you, and even the speaker himself, might say “well obviously not that part applies”, but what rational basis did they use to exclude those parts in the bible as not to be taken literally? Because until they can come up with a way to determine what in the bible is to be taken literal and what is just metaphor story building allegory fluff, then a reasonable person would be cautious and take the whole thing seriously when someone says the want to use it as the basis for governing people.

    Have you read the whole thing? It’s actually pretty scary stuff. So… excuse us for trying to put a little humor in the situation. Akin and the like are just so oblivious to what they’re really saying it’s practically impossible for some of us to not point and laugh.

Leave a Reply