The rnc chairman Reince Priebus Says the repugican cabal is a cult

Lunatic Fringe 

From the "Well, I'll be danged, they finally admitted it" Department:

 

Talking to The Brody File on the christian Broadcasting Network (cBN) yesterday, Reince Priebus assured wingnut christians of every stripe that the repugican cabal stands for god’s own party. After the catastrophic failure of god’s brand in 2012, college repugicans came up with a scheme to get more votes without budging an inch on socially divisive culture war issues. As Salon put it, “Seem Tolerant.”
Priebus reassured his audience, however, that the repugican cabal is “a cult that embraces marriage,” and that he “is a chairman that understands that there’s only one sovereign god and that we ultimately aren’t dependent on what happens in politics, that what ultimately matters in our lives is that we’re salt and light in the world and that we’re honoring god in the things that we do every day.”
There you have it. From the rnc chairman’s mouth. Priebus doesn’t want to seem tolerant. He doesn’t even like the word “tolerant.”
What this means, of course, is that all the bigoted and hateful things repugicans do to minorities, to blacks, to women, to the LGBT community – to the very air we breathe and water we drink – are done to honor god.
Like all the atrocities committed in god’s name throughout sad history of monotheism from Moses onward.
The only difference should be, says Priebus, is that while they’re persecuting the Other, repugicans should smile more and be polite about it, because apparently, this is what the bible says to do while you’re persecuting the hell out of people you don’t like.
Watch courtesy of Right Wing Watch:

Brody: I want to talk to you about this way forward for the repugican cabal. When you use that word “intolerant” in what the rnc put out, Evangelicals start to grab the Excedrin bottles when they hear “tolerance” because they think “oh no the repugican cabal is changing and the whole gay marriage situation.” Why don’t you address this and maybe put evangelicals at ease, or can you put them at ease at all here?
Priebus: Well, one hundred percent. I don’t know if I’ve used the word “tolerance.” I don’t really care fo for that word myself. I don’t have a problem with it. I just think it has another meaning politically that can go the other direction. I happen to believe that our principles are sound. I do believe, and I still will tell you that our party believes that marriage is between one man and one woman. Our cabal believes that life begins at conception. I think those are foundational issues that aren’t going anywhere but what I have said, which I don’t think should be controversial at all and I would think christians and pastors and everyone in between should agree that our principles have to be draped in the concepts of grace, love and respect and that’s not code language, that’s the new testament, so I don’t think there should be any problem with that thinking in our party. That’s all I’ve said. It’s not what you say, I think, it’s sometimes like our moms used to tell us, it’s how you say it; and I think that’s really the issue and quite frankly I think some of that has been overblown. I’m happy to address it but clearly myself and our party haven’t changed on those principles.

So persecuting people they don’t approve us isn’t the problem. I have a feeling the persecuted might want to differ on that point. According to Priebus, it’s how they say the hateful things they say that’s the problem.

Priebus: I happen to believe that our principles are sound. I do believe, and I still will tell you that our party believes that marriage is between one man and one woman. Our cabal believes that life begins at conception. I think those are foundational issues that aren’t going anywhere but what I have said, which I don’t think should be controversy at all and I would think that christians and pastors and everyone in between should agree that our principles have to be draped in the concepts of grace, love and respect and that’s not code language. That’s the New Testament so I don’t think there should be any problem with that thinking in our party.
If you’re looking at the evidence, what you will see is a party that embraces life, a party that embraces marriage and a chairman that understands that there’s only one sovereign god and that we ultimately aren’t dependent on what happens in politics. What ultimately matters in our lives is that we’re salt and light in the world and that we’re honoring god in the things that we do every day. I get that. I think our party gets that and there’s never been a movement away from that.

What is sad for Americans is that the repugican cabal was not always the cabal of intolerance and hate. Social issues were not always foundational principles for the repugican cabal. Our differences with the repugican cabal were truly political rather than religious and the two had not yet become conflated in wingnut imaginations.
But now, what Priebus is telling us, is that the repugican cabal is the cabal only of white wingnut christians, a “political” cabal whose only interest is in “honoring god” according to some narrowly defined, cherry-picked, and misrepresented (sometimes invented) biblical mandates.
He is saying, like Pope Benedict XVI once said, that their capital-T Truth trumps tolerance and that no matter how badly their hateful activities impact them, they should stick to their guns and march onward like christian soldiers, imposing their views on an America whose Constitution forbids such imposition.
Americans cannot vote strictly politics in the early 21st century. Not even if they want to. The repugican cabal says you can’t because to compromise is to defy God; liberals and others can’t because the GOP’s über exclusive cabal platform is less political platform and more religious dogma; dogma that leaves no room for women, ethnic minorities, atheists, secularists, Jews, Muslims, gays, lesbians, or Pagans like me – let alone all those old-fashioned Goldwater era folks.
When Americans vote, therefore, they must recognize that the election is not between two political parties, but between one political party and a religion, a religion which, if it had its way, would ultimately do away with the political party in order that America become some dystopian, corporate-sponsored theocracy.