Christian fascism?

The National Socialist Party was a global threat with a genocidal program. So what kind of image does the title: “Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism evoke? Just what is Christian Nationalism supposed to be?

According to Salon.com senior writer, Michelle Goldberg, Christian Nationalism is a real threat facing America, and her purpose is evidently to warn everyone of the danger before our not-too-far-off American krystalnacht.

"Across the United States, religious activists are organizing to establish an American theocracy. A frightening look inside the growing right-wing movement."

A few days before Bush's second inauguration, The New York Times carried a story headlined "Warning from a Student of Democracy's Collapse" about Fritz Stern, a refugee from Nazi Germany, professor emeritus of history at Columbia, and scholar of fascism. It quoted a speech he had given in Germany that drew parallels between Nazism and the American religious right. "Some people recognized the moral perils of mixing religion and politics," he was quoted saying of prewar Germany, "but many more were seduced by it. It was the pseudo-religious transfiguration of politics that largely ensured [Hitler's] success, notably in Protestant areas."

It's not surprising that Stern is alarmed. Reading his forty-five-year-old book "The Politics of Cultural Despair: A Study in the Rise of the Germanic Ideology," I shivered at its contemporary resonance. "The ideologists of the conservative revolution superimposed a vision of national redemption upon their dissatisfaction with liberal culture and with the loss of authoritative faith," he wrote in the introduction. "They posed as the true champions of nationalism, and berated the socialists for their internationalism, and the liberals for their pacifism and their indifference to national greatness."

Fascism isn't imminent in America. But its language and aesthetics are distressingly common among Christian nationalists. History professor Roger Griffin described the "mobilizing vision" of fascist movements as "the national community rising Phoenix-like after a period of encroaching decadence which all but destroyed it" (his italics). The Ten Commandments has become a potent symbol of this dreamed-for resurrection on the American right. ~Salon.com

Hateful and bigotted as I am, (let's not forget racist and anti-semetic too (except that my great grandfather on my mother's side was a Goldberg, by the way, from upstate New York-- but then Hitler had jewish heritage too didn't he...) but I digress), I still get a kick out of the kind of self-righteous and smug view that all the unwashed evangelical masses are somehow plotting to create a fascist christian state and force all the godless liberals to convert to christianity. There is some truth to that, but not, I think, in the way this author believes.

There is a definite edge to Goldberg's writing-- it's evident that this is a real fear in her mind.

What I think is highly ironic is that, incredibly, we are asked to see the threat of terrorism as a made-up war, a concocted scheme in order to create fear in the population so that they can be more easily controlled. And instead we are to believe that your next door neighbor, if they be one of these extreme fundamentalist Christians, are the second-coming of Hitler-- or at least the beginning of the second-coming of Hitler.

Still, it's worth noting that thousands of Americans nationwide have flocked to rallies at which military men don uniforms and pledge to seize the reins of power in America on behalf of Christianity. In many places, local religious leaders and politicians lend their support to AVIDD's cause. And at least some of the people at these rallies speak with seething resentment about the tyranny of Jews over America's Christian majority. ~Salon.com

Welcome to Jesusland Michelle.

Addendum:

American Theocracy?

So what would an American Theocracy look like? Well, first of all there is no such animal, I can assure you.  Even as the Michelle Goldberg's of the world explain in detail the 'scary' rise of this threat, those of us who would lead this theocracy are scratching our heads. As a self-described, "77 year old narrow-minded Conservative Christian," and retired preacher puts it:

"For the most part, true Christians would rather be left alone to do the work of the Lord and would never change our Constitutional Representative Republic.

...We will defend our faith and the right to share it, but forcing people to believe is not the Biblical way. We kindly present God’s message of Salvation in Jesus Christ as the Bible says, “to the Jew first and also to the Gentile” in love."  ~expreacherman

I think the difference in opinion about the separation of church and state can be summarized as one side believing that it is supposed to create a freemarket of ideas, and the other side believing that it proscribes that the state enforce a strict form of secularism which in itself should be considered a quasi-religion.

Posted by Eric Simonson at July 8, 2006 3:22 AM
Comments
Comment #165861

I laugh every time I hear (or read) a liberal (or an ungodly person) attack the Christian community for trying to take over politics. What? Are the liberals going to instill the values in our culture that will benefit the next generation of Christians? Not very likely! Only Christians who engage in the political process can help to form the values that they believe will be beneficial for Christians and, they believe, society in general. Christians are not trying to take over; they only want a say in the process. They have that right as American citizens.

Posted by: Don at July 8, 2006 3:30 PM
Comment #165868

Eric:

I have to be careful how I say this. If I agree with the author you quote, then I’ll be accused of being hostile to Christianity. Let me say up front, I’m not hostile to any religious person, providing he does not try to impose his religious tenets upon me.

The author points out that there are people who want to establish a theocracy here. This is a fact. Many have made such statements.

I don’t know how strong a movement this is. But I do know that it must be fought if we want to maintain American democracy.

By the way, you say:

“incredibly, we are asked to see the threat of terrorism as a made-up war”

Nobody says this. What I and some other liberals say is that the Iraq War is a “made-up war.” We should fight al Qaeda, not Iraq.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at July 8, 2006 3:43 PM
Comment #165875

Paul,

I don’t know how strong a movement this is. But I do know that it must be fought if we want to maintain American democracy.

Every “theocrat” I know, (and I certainly know some), does not want Christianity to be the official religion of America. They want everyone to become a christian, certainly yes, but through a state religion, absolutely not.

There is no American Theocracy in the works.

“incredibly, we are asked to see the threat of terrorism as a made-upwar”

Nobody says this. What I and some other liberals say is that the Iraq War is a “made-up war.” We should fight al Qaeda, not Iraq.

Well as a listener to Air America and other liberal-leftist media I do in fact hear this. In fact this afternoon Randy Rhodes was edging toward 9/11 conspiracy. (I was cleaning the garage and didn’t listen to the entire show, but boy…)

Posted by: eric simonson at July 8, 2006 4:04 PM
Comment #165876

The KKK are a fundamentalist Christian Organization, marginalized almost into non-existence, but, not quite. They are back under varying names, and joining our military, and growing again in numbers, as the illegal immigration issue brings them closer to each other. Will they be successful in shaping American politics? They used to.

But, to grow and succeed as a major mover in the Republican Party, they must be far more educated, subtle, and nuanced in their their rhetoric, strategy, and tactics. In other words, they have to be more like liberals to succeed. So the question is, is the white bigot fundamentalist Christian in American capable of acquiring the education necessary to become a political mover, or, has mainstream America matured socially enough to spot and reject the KKK in whatever garb, tactics and strategy they hide behind?

Hate dressed in Christianity and the Flag has always been alive in America, and still is today. But, are the majority of Americans willing to reembrace them if their appearance has had a makeover? There is a law preventing them in the military. But, they are getting in nonetheless. Perhaps their makeover is far better than most of us would like to admit.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 8, 2006 4:04 PM
Comment #165907

David,

Racism is blasphemy. Man, ALL man, is a physical creation of the image of God. To say that any of those images of God are inferior to your little conehead group is to imply your superiority to the Creator Himself, which is blasphemy. A lot of ungodly organizations have claimed Christianity, but that doesn’t make them Christian. But I seem to remember a certain secular racist group taking power in a European country about 75 years ago and slaughtering people of a certain race by the millions, a feat certainly never touched by the KKK. Racism is antiChristian and I fight it as hard as I fight the liberal plans to wipe all Christians off the globe.

Posted by: Duane-o at July 8, 2006 5:21 PM
Comment #165954

Duano:

Where in all hell do you get this?

the liberal plans to wipe all Christians off the globe.

You think this somehow helps convert folks to your way of thinking?

Posted by: womanmarine at July 8, 2006 6:58 PM
Comment #165960

womanmarine, paranoia and fear are the roots of hate. That is where such rhetoric comes from.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 8, 2006 7:17 PM
Comment #165970

I said something in another thread I would like to repeat.

What sets the civilized nations apart from the fascistic ones is that we have respect for one another’s beliefs, and can live in harmony with our differences. We can agree to disagree without killing one another. We come to make mutual international agreements and abide by them. We do not force our beliefs on other people. In other words, we are an international liberal community.

Some Republicans complain about Democrat positions undermining our war against terror, but I say look to yourselves. It is your president that wants to cast this war as Christian versus Muslim as oppossed to world versus fascists, the Republican party that argues we should install the ten commandments in our senate, and the current administration who listens in on its own citizens, tortures indiscriminately, and breaks the international promises it makes. The problem is Republican agenda is similar to the terrorists’(though there is not a real comparison - terrorism is pure, unadulterated evil) . They want to force others to share their beliefs and strongarm policies onto other countries, and that undermines our ability to convince the world and Arabs at large that we are on the side of right. It’s sad really that the current administration reflects so little of what we are really fighting for, our freedom to live and let live.

Posted by: Max at July 8, 2006 7:43 PM
Comment #165971

David and Womanmarine,

Doesn’t your side fear a theocracy where everyone will be forced to convert to Christianity? Isn’t this fear and paranoia just as absurd as mine? I do believe there is an element within the “progressive” movement that is planning the eventual abolition of Christianity and probably all religion. It’s in the Communist Manifesto, the socialist equivalent to the Bible, so why shouldn’t it be feared? It’s the Democrats’ job to prove this isn’t the case if they ever want to win back the Christian voters they’ve offended in the recent past.

Posted by: Duane-o at July 8, 2006 7:43 PM
Comment #165975

Max,

Care to cite some solid proof that our government “tortures indiscriminately”, or any of the other bumper sticker points you’ve futilely tried to articulate? Bush made this war “Christian vs Muslim”? How about setting the kool-aid down for a second. After 9-11, Bush made it a point immediately to state that we aren’t fighting Islam and that Islam is a religion of peace. You’ll have to cite some examples if you expect anyone to take you seriously on these issues. Bottom’s up!!

Posted by: Duane-o at July 8, 2006 7:49 PM
Comment #165986

The Nazis were not secular. They weren’t exactly Christian either. They were very much into the occult and teutonic mysticism, a very strong sort of pagan knights of the round table thing. It’s not by accident that the Swastika was first used in ancient times as an Indian Luck symbol. Hitler had a psychic choose the logo for him.

I’m not so much a believer in Christian fascism, but I think it could be one part of some kind tyrannical movement going. The Republicans don’t like to be frustrated in what they do. Right now they’re pretty bad sports about things like Supreme Court Decisions, outrage over warrantly surveillance of US citizens, and any kind of impediment to their permanent majority.

Now, the Right could learn a little humility to the system, and bring itself back from the brink. I think most people want that. Many people on the right are very much opposed to the excesses of Bush’s government.

But as long as Republicans are taught to win by exclusion and division, and to win at all costs, there will be that temptation to take that path.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 8, 2006 8:27 PM
Comment #165988

Duano-
Tell me something: where in this column have people sung the praises of good-old fashioned marxism, and not just Liberal ideals you’ve painted as such?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 8, 2006 8:29 PM
Comment #165989

Okay, Stephen, we’ll say Hitler was religious, pagan, but still. How about Mao and Stalin, avowed atheists who each slaughtered MORE PEOPLE THAN HITLER, and more people than have been killed in the name of Christianity in all of history. Ah, yes, the wonders that atheism has brought our planet!

Posted by: Duane-o at July 8, 2006 8:31 PM
Comment #166002

Duane-o, to fear living with others who choose not to believe in god, is an irrational fear. A rational fear would be that atheists attempt to end all churches and sunday schools. That would be a rational fear of losing one’s rights. Or the converse, religious people working to pass laws allowing them to mandate that everyone’s children be exposed to Christianity in public schools or football games or find another school.

Hate and fear based on differences is irrational. Atheism is nothing to fear. Neither is awareness of churches, synagogues, and mosques. Where folks cross the line into paranoia and irrational force to limit other’s freedoms is when one attempts to create my way or the highway rules regarding beliefs.

If parents want religion in schools, let them send their children to private parochial schools. If atheists want to indoctrinate their children to atheism, let them take their children to atheists anonymous meetings. Public schools, public places maintained by public dollars should be neutral ground as far as religious practice is concerned. Any and everyone can observe their religious beliefs in their mind, with silent prayer, to thank their deity for a good test score or fine lunch, whatever. No one, not even atheists seek to deny that right.

But to allow congregational religious observance in publicly funded areas is an infringement on the neutral ground, just as atheist rallies in schools would be. This is what makes so many Christian Fundamentalist lobbying attempts irrational. The fact that our Consitution provides that atheists be entitled to any all rights the law grants Christians. Hence, for them to lobby for Christian observance in schools is to lobby for atheist and agnostic rallies in the schools as well. And as you and I both know, that would lead to a kind of warfare that would detract and distract students from the purpose of public schools, academics and socialization skill building.

Believe it or not, the majority of Americans don’t want this religious war to be fought out by their children in the public schools. Religious education should be voluntary and in private places like homes and places of worship. Or if they are to be public, they should take the form of voluntary witness as in Cable religious programming or books consumers can choose to buy or not.

This is the only rational approach to religion as our founding fathers realized when they created the anti-establishment clause. Freedom to choose, and freedom from coercion by others are bedrock principles this nation was founded upon. Children are malleable and impressionable, and it is vital for the freedom of choice that ALL parents have the right to protect their children from indoctrination to other faiths at the hands of public paid employees or under government auspices, which is where minority and individual rights are so vulnerable. Hence the grand wisdom of the Bill of Rights.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 8, 2006 8:59 PM
Comment #166009

Duane-0:

“It’s the Democrats’ job to prove this isn’t the case if they ever want to win back the Christian voters they’ve offended in the recent past.”

Can’t speak for the Democrats, but if a political party isn’t offending certain lunatic fringes of the the Evangelical movement, they’re not doing their job. Ergo, the Republicans aren’t doing theirs.

Posted by: Tim Crow at July 8, 2006 9:23 PM
Comment #166028

David -

Love your fear-mongering:

“The KKK are a fundamentalist Christian Organization, marginalized almost into non-existence, but, not quite.”

No fundamentalist mainline Christian church supports the KKK. In fact, most fundamentalists, evangelicals, and Catholics repudiate and abhor the KKK and its practices. But you knew that.

You also wrote this drivel:

“So the question is, is the white bigot fundamentalist Christian in American capable of acquiring the education necessary to become a political mover, or, has mainstream America matured socially enough to spot and reject the KKK in whatever garb, tactics and strategy they hide behind?”

This is a stupid post and has little to do with the theme of the thread begun by Eric, except in your own mind. The KKK has no great followership in America except in Senator Byrd of the Democrat Party. It is a fringe group. Your side has plenty of fringe groups. Mainstream Christians in America reject the tenets of the KKK. I’m not so sure mainstream liberals do the same.

On the other hand I found the following post of yours much more thoughtful and reasonable:

“Duane-o, to fear living with others who choose not to believe in god, is an irrational fear. A rational fear would be that atheists attempt to end all churches and sunday schools. That would be a rational fear of losing one’s rights. Or the converse, religious people working to pass laws allowing them to mandate that everyone’s children be exposed to Christianity in public schools or football games or find another school…”

Posted by: Don at July 8, 2006 10:36 PM
Comment #166030

Duano-
My theory is people can be bloody murderers regardless of whether they find religion or not. That’s humanity’s perverse nature for you. We can twist good things to evil purposes.

We can also redeem ourselves to a certain extent. That is why I believe that organized religion and political liberalism,with their emphasis on regulated systems that work towards the greatest happiness of all can be good things in the world. The trouble comes when our religion or lack of same lets us believe we can do anything we want in the name of a good cause and not do evil.

Political parties can unloose such inhibitions. So can religious factions and sects. It is that common descent into the land of anything goes that marks mans inhumanity to man, not any particular school of thought or creed of faith.

As for your views of my politics, and those of my friends in Blue column, I wish you would stop approach us like classic marxists. Doctrinaire socialism is not our cup of tea. We’re not afraid to sometime use socialist means, but we’re not the God-hating commies you imagine us to be. It’s time to broaden your imagination.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 8, 2006 10:44 PM
Comment #166041

Comparing today’s Religious Right to the Nazis is a stretch, but ther are similarities. Take this quote from Hermann Goering, taken from an interview right before he was sentenced to die at Neuremberg:

“Naturally, the common people don’t want war … but after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.”

Sound familiar?

Posted by: David S at July 9, 2006 1:35 AM
Comment #166042

The true danger of either religion or any secular ideology is when the belief emerges that the ends justify the means. Hitler wanted a pure Aryan nation and had no problem with the murder of Jews, Gypsys, Slavs, or anyone else not fitting the standard. The ends justified the means. Stalin wanted a pure communist state and had no problem with starving millions of Ukrainians, brutally murdering Orthodox priests, and wiping out his officer corps to pander to his own paranoia. The ends justified the means.

This type of thinking is the nmost dangerous out there. It is the ideology of terrorists, be them Muslim radicals, nationalists such as ETA or the IRA, communist such as the Red Brigades etc of Europe, or under the false mantle of Christianity. The idea of the ends justifying the means is and has always been the most destructive of human impulses. Once a goal overcomes our ability to view each other as fellow human beings, nothing else is sacred.

Posted by: 1LT B at July 9, 2006 1:35 AM
Comment #166045

1 LT B-

I couldn’t agree more. It definitely applies in America today, whether it be the torture debate or illegal wiretapping. Oh wait…you probably think the ends do justify the means there, huh?

Posted by: David S at July 9, 2006 2:08 AM
Comment #166058

Bankrupting our government under double digit trillions of dollars of debt in order to end entitlement spending. Ends justifying the means.

Securing a humongous military base of operations in the oil rich Middle East was the end. Invading Iraq was the means.

Securing and forever preserving one party dominance in American politics is the end. Gerrymandering, voting machines without paper trail or accountability, dividing the nation and her people on moral value issues, eroding educational standards and dumbing down future generations, and secrecy in government justified by Orwellian perpetual war are all the means.

1LT B, you are absolutlely dead on target!

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 9, 2006 5:41 AM
Comment #166067

Both major parties to get enough votes to win have to court blocs with immoderate views. And then one party takes the extremist views of certain members of the other party and uses it to characterize the entire other party. Thus the left fears that all Republicans are extremist fundamentalists who want to (and sometimes do) murder those who legally provide abortion services, and the right fears that all on the left want to eradicate God. That’s the problem with a two-party system. The truth is that most of us are in the middle.

By the way, I find atheism a ridiculous position: how can one be certain that God does not exist? Proving a negative here is impossible. Short of divine revelation, which I have not received, I also find belief in a supernatural agency untenable. So from my point of view, agnosticism is the only reasonable position.

Most of my leftist friends, those that are not religious that is, have no problem with other people’s religion as long as state services are not used to cram their doctrines down our throats. Because of the nature of democracy, we have to accept state dollars being used for many purposes we do not agree with, but our founding documents give us ample warrant to insist that the state not support any particular religious view. Now, lucky for us, many values — not all! — incorporated in religion are just good human values. The foundational texts of Judaism, for except, which of course are also foundational for Christianity (and yes, I know the New Testament is seen to represent a New Covenant, and thus supersedes some the scarier parts of the Old Testament, are by their natural exclusionary, in the main. It is true that parts of the OT value the dignity of outsiders, but it is equally true that in the main the OT warrants the abolotion of those who do not believe in the One True God. People such as Pat Robertson are scary because they seem to embody OT values more than NT ones. We listen to people like him and do shudder at the thought of those of that ilk running America. That is the basis, I believe, of the dread some have of a coming American theocracy.

Posted by: Trent at July 9, 2006 9:37 AM
Comment #166068

Whether it was Hitler, Moussolini, Stalin, or Osama, they all pervert the same Tower of Babel myth, namely that they are a chosen race/religion that are suffering for the sins of the godless next door who must be destroyed for the good of mankind in general.

Posted by: Max at July 9, 2006 9:38 AM
Comment #166069

I think what is missing here is that Conservative Christians have taken their religion public. What we see is that they have hijacked the republican party and they are working very hard to influence the republican party and legislation.

They have become a powerful lobby and constituency that a Republican needs to get eleceted. They do have an agenda and believe it is their responsibility to promote a moral Christian democracy.

All of this is their constituational right. But I think we forget that this minority Christian group, which does not represent the majority of Christians in this country, has gained the money and influence to effect political change. Their goal is a Christian Nation.

Whether or not this is an American Theocracy I do not know. But the influence of Conservative Christians in the public domain is real.

Posted by: Stefano at July 9, 2006 9:39 AM
Comment #166070

I suggest that wiretapping foriegn phone calls into the United States and monitoring international bank exchanges does not rise to the level of mass deportations to death camps. If some on the left see it as such, that is their right. The fact that they aren’t being carted off to these death camps right now suggests to me that they are exageratting a bit for political points. The ends of these programs is to prevent further terrorist attacks on the United States. The means are not hurting anybody. Get over it. Despite your own sense of self-importance, I find it highly dubious that the governement is watching you.

Posted by: 1LT B at July 9, 2006 9:49 AM
Comment #166072

1-There is no reasonable fear of an American theocracy.
2-There is no reasonable fear of an American liberal abolition of Christianity.
3-fascists and Christian fundamentalists are two very different things.
4-communists and American liberals are two very different things.
—The only thing we truly have to fear is fear of the other side degenerating into an ugly name-calling contest over moderates.

Posted by: Silima at July 9, 2006 10:01 AM
Comment #166102

There certainly is a segment, large and growing, of American Christianity that seeks to found a theocracy here in the USA. Of that, there is no doubt - I would have to use up several Mb of computer space documenting the utterances of the various proponents of this idea.
Thankfully, we still live in a reasonably free society and can openly examine the motives, beliefs and agendas of what I have taken to calling The Jesus Taliban. As long as we can hold them up to the harsh light of reality our chances of being taken over by their misguided, hypocritical and dishonest worldview diminish.
As a politically active Libertarian, I stand opposed to any form of theocracy in my country and I urge any and all like-minded folks to add their voices to the ongoing debate.

Posted by: Craig at July 9, 2006 12:39 PM
Comment #166120

President Bush IS a Christian..and a good Christian. It isn’t the President which is pushing our country into a fascist regime, it is Cheney and Rumsfeld (neither one even remotely a good Christian). If we keep in mind that Hitler DID use the Christians to gain complete control of Germany and we watch the ‘behind-the-scenes’ control of Cheney and Rumsfeld, we should keep in mind that once Hitler did get control he had no use for the Christians.
It isn’t President Bush who is the problem. He isn’t allowed to watch TV or read or keep up with what is going on in America. He is spoonfed information from this controlling force which lurks behind him. I mean look at Cheney, do you see in his face a man of faith, a follower of Jesus’ teachings.
There are a scant few, when faced with who is really running this country that will not agree with me. They are playing the Christia card because President Bush is a Christian…and they are doing it simply for votes.
Let’s face it, Rumsfeld and Cheney are about as far removed from the teachings of Jesus as was Judas. These guys have been instrumental in erasing social programs (no concern for the poor, as Jesus was concened),increasing global warming (would Jesus abuse the planet?), and are operating in secrecy from their own government (did Jesus hide in the background?)
We do have a problem and it isn’t President Bush, it’s those behind him who are using the good Christians of this country just like Hitler used the good Christians of Germany.
Ask yourself what Jesus would do and then, for God’s sake, try and emulate him, not Satan.
robin

Posted by: robin szcz at July 9, 2006 1:40 PM
Comment #166122

Wow - What an analogy - Christianity and Hitler’s Nazi Germany!! Its preposterous and ridiculous. If anyone who feels this way would set out to determine and educate themselves on the principals of true christianity, they could not even make such a claim. Regarding the Ten Commandments - read them - are they evil? They are a necessary part of a civil society whether you believe in Jesus as your Saviour or not.
Christianity contains principals of love and compassion within the framework of God’s universe. Never would a true christian seek to “kill” or “force” someone into becoming a Christian - nor would have Christ himself. What so many people need to do is pick up a Bible and read from it instead of so many other unreliable and tainted sources. I fear greatly for our Country and my children.

Posted by: Julie at July 9, 2006 1:44 PM
Comment #166124

While there are smaller movements toward a nationalistic Christianity, with its own myths about providence and the concept that America is the promised land and we are God’s new chosen people, the most visible of the men pushing this illusion is already on a downward political spiral thanks to breaking the law. But with Tom Delay gone, there is an opening, and Sam Brown back and others see themselves as filling the gap. They want to make God the central concern of public policy in America, they want issues to be discussed on moral terms and solutions to be based in the Judeo Christian ideology, they believe we are in a divinely mandated place, that God gifted to us.

Of course, this view is absurd to me, since it essentially washes away the genocide of nine million American Indians as part of divine providence, something which is far too horrific for me to accept as a mainstream belief. I honestly think people just like how the rhetoric sounds, and don’t think about the historical implications of what they are saying. But America was not founded on Christianity, it was founded on Liberalism (as in, Liberal Democracy, as John Locke and others imagined), an outgrowth of the enlightenment, which was a human rights movement fought by the religious establishment, and argued in relgious terms, but with no actual basis in scripture. Reading the bible, democracy and personal freedom were not valued until someone decided to frame them as a moral issue.

Now, this is a good thing, but it leads people to exagerate the role of religion informing the creation of a democratic state. It was not the result of reading the Bible, but political philosophers who argued about morality without actually drawing their evidence from scripture, that lead to the creation of the American democracy.

Posted by: iandanger at July 9, 2006 1:55 PM
Comment #166133

David.
The KKK are a fundamentalist Christian Organization, marginalized almost into non-existence, but, not quite.

WRONG They are no more Christian than the Nazis. Both are radical hate filled organizations. They try to pass as Christian but no true Christian will have anything to do with them. True Christianity doesn’t teach hate.

Posted by: Ron Brown at July 9, 2006 2:08 PM
Comment #166135

silma, how wrong you are. What we have to fear is a president packing the S.C. to undo the anti-establishment clause of the Constitution. That is a very real fear for it is a very real effort underway.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 9, 2006 2:11 PM
Comment #166146

David
No real christian wants to make up a state sanctioned religion. The only one who would do such a thing would be called anti-christ.

Posted by: Rich at July 9, 2006 2:44 PM
Comment #166163

David R. said:

“If parents want religion in schools, let them send their children to private parochial schools.”

I don’t know which side of the issue you fall, but many of the same people who believe this way have no problem with public schools bringing gay men into elementary school classes to espouse the joys of alternate lifestyles under the guise of promoting tolerance.

Indoctrination by any other name is still indoctrination.

You can’t have it both ways.

Posted by: ulysses at July 9, 2006 4:25 PM
Comment #166166

Ulysses
AMEN

Posted by: RAK at July 9, 2006 4:38 PM
Comment #166170
Regarding the Ten Commandments - read them - are they evil? They are a necessary part of a civil society whether you believe in Jesus as your Saviour or not.

Julie,

I disagree. The Ten Commandments are not a necessary part of a civil society. The last 6, yes. The first 4 (3 if you are catholic), absolutely not. If we displayed the “Six Commandments for a Civilized Society” around government buildings, I don’t think we would see the same fuss being made by some. The fist 4 Commandments load the others as being overtly religious in nature.

The ironic thing is that Jesus himself never speaks of the first 4 Commandments. When he is asked which commandments must be kept for salvation, he only recites the last 6. Matthew 19:16-19

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 9, 2006 4:47 PM
Comment #166174

JayJay
Read Matthew 22:34-40 Jesus reduces the ten into two.

Posted by: Rich at July 9, 2006 5:09 PM
Comment #166178

Here it comes—a Bible-off at twenty paces.

Posted by: Tim Crow at July 9, 2006 5:29 PM
Comment #166208

Ron Brown, true Christianity like all the major religions teach peace is the wise and moral way. But, that is the difference between religion and the church, synagogue, temple or mosque; for these are “congregations” and congregations are imperfect humans capable of anything within and outside what a religion teaches. The Donner Party were good Christians, until they had no food and faced starvation, then they became cannibals. Later, the survivors were interviewed and researched and it was found they still considered themselves good Christians, as necessity justified their cannibalism. This is the way of good Christians, Muslims, Hindu’s and Buddhists. The followers are good only so long as good does not cost them. Let the cost of being good by their religion rise to high, and most will no longer be good, but, they will rationalize they were still good afterward.

Was it good to cause the deaths of over 100,000 women, children and men in Iraq when Iraq made no attack upon our country or our people outside their borders? Bush says he is a good Christian. But he also says invading Iraq was necessary. Christianity teaches not to kill, and to turn the other cheek. As a Christian, Bush took the day off when he ordered the invasion of Iraq. That makes it OK for him to still be considered a good Christian all the other days he didn’t order deaths to take place, I guess.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 9, 2006 8:00 PM
Comment #166210

RAK and ulysses are spreading pure BS. I can’t imagine parents not knowing their kids are being taught gay life styles by gay teachers in schools and I can’t imagine the local PTA not dealing with such a situation in ways that would make headlines. So, please, back up this BS with some headlines about numbers of gay teachers in our country teaching gay lifestyles to our children.

Go ahead. Back it up. One or two examples won’t do it. In a nation of 300 million people, there will be a few teachers of a 100,000 who violate every rule and law known. But, demonstrate that this is any real threat besides the occasional teacher who is found to be hetero and a pedophile, hetero and a thief.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 9, 2006 8:05 PM
Comment #166211

Rich,

You aren’t entirely wrong, but you aren’t really right either. Jesus says that all the laws hang on those two, but not that the others are somehow erased. Jesus himself said that the laws of God were unchanging.

Posted by: iandanger at July 9, 2006 8:07 PM
Comment #166212

Jay Jay,

You happened to mention one of my favorite bible passages. As a Buddhist I always respect material asceticism. Id just like to quote it below:

“Jesus replied, ” ‘Do not murder, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not give false testimony, 19honor your father and mother,’[d] and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’[e]”

20”All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”

21Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”“

Posted by: iandanger at July 9, 2006 8:11 PM
Comment #166218

David R. Remer
Type in your search engine GAY AGENDA IN SCHOOLS You will be enlightened

Posted by: RAK at July 9, 2006 8:26 PM
Comment #166221

RAK,

Not even going into the fact that you are backing up your claims by saying, “do my research for me,” I find your entire argument absurd. The only “gay agenda” I’m aware of is preventing students from attacking and assaulting gay classmates. Teaching students not to violently pick on people because they are different seems like a good lesson to me, and unless you can demonstrate anything besides that in the school system, you are raging against something which isn’t really happening.

If you think it is wrong to tell students not to judge others for their lifestyle, then what you are doing is neglegently allowing the kind of discrimination that leads to violence against gay students, and makes homosexual students scared to come out and often times suicidal and depressed.

Whether you like it or not, there are gay people in the world, we can teach our children to treat them as human beings, or we can allow youthful pack mentality and fear of the unusual turn our children into monsters.

Being gay is normal, every society and even most species have gay members, its life, you can try to hide it as much as you want, but it doesn’t change things.

Posted by: iandanger at July 9, 2006 8:36 PM
Comment #166227

IANDANGER
I figured somebody would say something like you did without searching out the real truth. Believe what you believe. I believe gay have all the rights in the world to live as they want to. But as either one of the N.Y. or Georgia justices said they don’t have the right to change society

Posted by: RAK at July 9, 2006 8:52 PM
Comment #166228

Christian Fascisim? An American theocracy? Is that what you would call our country prior to all the court rulings eliminating references to God?

For many years fundementalist Christians tended to be disinterested in politics. They did a lot of complaining about the direction our society was heading but didn’t do much more. They were basically looked as a bunch of whinning Bible thumpers. Then legal changes started coming. Evolution taught as fact and to the exclusion of any other possible theory. Christmas Carols removed from school programs, gay is ok teaching in public schools. Don’t agree with those things? Tough. School vouchers so you can send your kids to a school that teaches diferently? No way.

The Christian right finally woke up and fingured out that they actually have the right to vote. Once they organized, started voting and winning elections, liberals started looking beyond the elected govt bodies to the unelected courts to mandate their positions. Now we seem to be reaching a point beyond that. Now, based on many of the posts I see, the “Christian right” is being demonized as a boogeyman who, left unchecked, will make America a theocracy. Are comments like those intended to simply rally the liberal base or are some on the left considering their legal options to further reign in the Christian right? We already know that from a liberal perspective being a Christian should disqualify a person from serving on the Supreme court since supposedly there is no way they can separate their legal opinions from their religious beliefs. Maybe at some point, and with a different make up of the Supreme court, you can make this exclusion of Christians from the court legal doctrine instead of just political desire. And from there maybe limiting Christian access to the legislature and executive branches wouldn’t be such a stretch in order to keep those officials in those branches from making decisions that affect all of us that are really based on their personal religious views.

Posted by: Carnak at July 9, 2006 9:04 PM
Comment #166235

RAK,

The burden of proof is on the accuser, if you say the gay agenda is indocrinating students, you have to show me evidence, not tell me to use google to search for information. Unless you show me something which is a verifiable source, I’m not going to believe your accusation.

Posted by: iandanger at July 9, 2006 9:57 PM
Comment #166238

IANDANGER
Here is one of many. WWW.narth.com/docs/face/html

Posted by: RAK at July 9, 2006 10:19 PM
Comment #166237

IANDANGER
Here is one of many. WWW.narth.com/docs/face/html

Posted by: RAK at July 9, 2006 10:19 PM
Comment #166239

IANDANGER
Here is one of many. www.narth.com/docs/face.html

Posted by: RAK at July 9, 2006 10:20 PM
Comment #166240

RAK,

The National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality? Got any non-biased sources?

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 9, 2006 10:26 PM
Comment #166241

JAYJAY
www.thepwtl.50megs.com/schools.html

Posted by: RAK at July 9, 2006 10:28 PM
Comment #166242

RAK,

All that is is a syndication of a news story about a lawsuit accusing the schools of treating homosexuality as being okay. Do you think schools should allow children to pick on gay students? Should they allow assault of gay peers? From there, is it not okay for schools to discriminate directly against gay students? I told you I wanted evidence of this supposed gay conspiracy to turn kids gay, and I haven’t seen anything supporting that notion.

Posted by: iandanger at July 9, 2006 10:34 PM
Comment #166243

IANDANGER
www.thepwtl.50megs.com/schools.html

Posted by: RAK at July 9, 2006 10:40 PM
Comment #166246

RAK,

That is not an un-biased source.

Posted by: JayJay Snow at July 9, 2006 10:52 PM
Comment #166250

MY ARGUMENT

It isn’t that you ‘freaks’ who are monitoring my computer are evil; I truly believe that most of you really believe that you are working for America and doing a service. One might assume that simply by the nature of what you are reading (scanning) that you would erase them as any kind of threat.
My point is, since I know you’re reading this is that, like it or not, you aren’t monitoring for terrorists, you are monitoring normal Americans who are fed up with the Nazi-like take over of our civil liberties.
I know that most of you are Evangelical Christians because Cheney and Rumsfeld (Bush has little to do with all of this), like it or not, want to turn the Evangelicals against everyone else. It is all about voting. If we study the history of Nazi Germany we will find that there were people just like Cheney and Rumsfeld fighting to promote the Christian Rights. They used good, hard working and honest Christians, to gain power. As soon as they gained total control of Germany, they discounted and ignored the Christians…having no more use for them.
GW Bush is a good Christian..but he isn’t running the show. Look at Cheney’s face….look at Rumsfeld’s face…they are the ones in control.. They are the ones in control of you, who is monitoring me. The sad fact is that they are monitoring everyone…like me, who is just a normal, every-day American. What does this tell you?
They are monitoring all our calls to know who is for or against them, they are monitoring all the financial records of anyone who is performing overseas transactions (more than half of all investing Americans), and unless you are really naïve, the theft (after the casual take-home) of all the addresses and social security numbers of veterans, is just another way to monitor potential threats to their eventual takeover.
Cheney (God, is he ugly or what?), and Rumsfeld are the ones in control of the Country. They will not allow GW to view newspapers, videos, tv, or anything that might shed light on what the American people are really thinking.
This isn’t about religion, good or evil, among the American people, it’s about a few very mean-spirited people who wanted control of America and know they were simply too mean and ugly to ever get a vote.
They are using GW (a good Christian), to cover up their activities.
We, as Americans, and especially we, as Christians, must stand up and say, “If you are not behaving in a way that Jesus would approve, then you are not advocating Christianity.
All of us are sick of the ‘welfare-fraud’ and minorities bleading us financially. If we look at it objectively, though, we know that is just such a very small amount of the budget each year. The mean-spirited, evil people in control want us to think that it is the welfare people, the large cities, and the democrats, who are responsible for all that is negative. Only a very few, very stupid people would agree with that. Take a look, read the news (oh no, it’s poisoned), and find the truth. They are trying to ‘poison the well’ so that you hate he media. In fact the media is run by college educated people who are just smart enough to dig into the truth. You might be sitting in a mobile home in Tennessee but you have the right, as an American, to see the truth, and hear the truth. This Administration (Cheney and Rumsfeld) has continually been held accountable for not allowing the American people to see the truth. They call it a war on terror but it is really a way to monitor each and every one of us so they know exactly where we stand when they do their take-over.


Posted by: robin szczepaniak at July 10, 2006 12:03 AM
Comment #166265

Bwah hah hah!!! You little leftist turds are gonna bite it when we in the VAST CHRISTIAN/Right Wing conspiracy finnally get our hands on the government.
We’ll abolish abortion, We’ll make sure those tacky gays and minorities know their places! Democrats will be chased off to socialist meccas like Canada that they will like better anyway… We’ll make sure the businesses close by noon on sunday! We’ll …Wel’ll
Oh whatever.
Look folks, Christians have just as much as right as non-believers to organize and get their message out via politics. Leftists just have a tizzy fit whenever it looks like things are not going to go their way.

Rak & Ulysses, this isn’t a news artical, its my life. Sorry, no web page available for my lefty critics.
My eight year old came home this year from an “Understanding Diversity” seminar in the school auditorium that included a series of gay lectureres telling the kids all about their wonderful lifestyle and bashing Christainity in the bargain as being “hateful” and “bigoted”. My son didn’t know what “Bigoted” was so I had to explain it to him…which is how I found out about the Diversity. Was I informed about this…no. I had to find out from my second grader. Yet I can’t get a voucher to send my son, who I think is too young to discuss sexuality just yet with, to another school, maybe even, God forbid, a Christian Academy. I, as a Christian, don’t want to tell you how to live your life, and certainly not through the force of government, which has historically weakened church attendence (see how many show up at the Church of England these days, anyone?)
But we still have guard rails on society for very good reasons, because without them, the more careless members of society would fall off and like as not, take a good many of the rest of us with them. In Europe and Russia, the population simply isn’t reproducing itself. Theres plenty of reasons for this, but the biggest one of all, the Elephant in the room is liberalism and its less than desirable effects on society.
No, you can’t blame the gays for that, but you can most certainly blame the licentious behavior and baby slaughtering abortion lifestyles that seem to go hand in hand with the sort of liberal thinking that so welcomes the ultimate expression of self centered and wanton living- the gay existance.
Gay guys and gals,no one wants to take your fun away, really, but I like my societal guardrails intact because I don’t want America to end up like a society cesspool like holland. I’m all for gays enjoying their lifestyle, just don’t call it marriage, because that goes right back to the demand for not just “tolerance of diversity” but the demand that we all “celebrate and accept” what many consider to a be a sick and immoral lifestyle choice. Sorry if you disaprove or hate my disaproval of you, but are not changing my mind. I’ll tolerate you, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to love gays or put up with their in your face “Breeder!” antics anymore than I absolutely have too. And yes, I will vote and push my politicians to fight back against your efforts to get at my second grader. Go be gay all you want, just leave my kid alone and we will all be fine. Until then, expect a fight.

Posted by: HardHatHarry at July 10, 2006 3:13 AM
Comment #166266

I also tolerate speeders, litterers and graffitti artists…but I rarely speed myself, I pick up other peoples litter and I despise grafitti art. Does that make me a hater?

Posted by: HardHatHarry at July 10, 2006 3:19 AM
Comment #166278

HardHatHarry,

You hit the nail on the head. The end result of liberal attitudes is a sick society in which nothing but the self is sacred. Concepts such as duty, loyalty, and sacrifice are not only absent but mocked and ridiculed. The end result of liberalism is a narcissistic fixation on me and me alone followed by the hedonism that such attitudes foster. Neither of these has any positive effect on society’s well being.

One point of emphasis about Russia. My girlfriend is Russian, and according to her, the main reason for the lack of children in Russia is not that it is overly liberal now, but that 70 years of liberalism’s most extreme expression ruined the country and created an atmosphere of such hopelessness that many people wouldn’t want to bring a child into the world even if they could afford to feed it.

Posted by: 1LT B at July 10, 2006 8:59 AM
Comment #166294

People are always using political cards when they cannot debate their opponents or to get away with something. The two most common cards are the race card and the Hitler/Nazi card. Politicians flee before them. I’m not afraid of them. Blacks have been equal since the 1960s, and Hitler and the Nazis are dead. We must elect politicians whose lives are in the present.

Christians opposed Nazism. Christians are the ones that want the US to continue to support Israel. That is proof: Nazis kill Jews; Christians support Jews.

Posted by: stubborn conservative at July 10, 2006 11:49 AM
Comment #166296

What on earth are you talking about?

Liberalism leads to a narcissistic fixation on me and me alone?

Gays live a wanton selfish lifestyle?

Everyone who lives a life focused on what they want is a selfish person, but this has nothing to do with liberal and conservative. It is selfish to live so far beyond our means when so many others in the world suffer and die of hunger, lack of water, and disease. Living like this is not unusual, almost all people live this way. But, have you gentlement sold your possesions and donated all of your money to the poor, then become monks? If not, you are guilty of the same sinful selfishness as the rest of us. I don’t begrudge you for it, it is a choice each of us makes, certainly one I make, but you cannot point your finger and scream at the rest of us for immorality when you are part of the very problem you so despise.

Posted by: iandanger at July 10, 2006 11:55 AM
Comment #166297

Stubborn Conservative,

Doesn’t the reason for support of Israel concern you a little?

Christians support Israel because they believe it is a necessary step to the begining of the apocalypse. They believe most of the Jews will die in the ensuing war, and that the rest will convert and follow Jesus.

Posted by: iandanger at July 10, 2006 12:01 PM
Comment #166301

HardHatHarry-

Thank God your son is getting diversity education in school. Maybe he’ll have a chance at evolving past your weak, close-minded, fearful beliefs.

1 LT B-

The end result of conservatism, especially religious conservatism, is a mindless mass of humanity, reliant on the drivel of the ruling class for their day-to-day instructions, subservient and hopeless.

People in America are starting to see again. They are starting to realize that the real divide in this country is economic. They look at their future, and the future they can provide for their children, and wonder why they have to break their backs so the silver spoons can get bigger houses, bigger cars, bigger boats. So, the middle class can finally afford to send their children to college? Better make that BA worthless, where’s your Masters degree? Oh, you thought you could retire comfortably? Sorry, we spent your social security saving you from terrorists, better get back to work. At some point the working classes of this country will realize that the American Dream is not for them. They do not have a seat at the table.

Religion is one of the many tools used to pacify the weak. This is not its true purpose, and I am not against religion. I consider myself quite religious, though I haven’t settled on one religion yet, and probably never will as I think most have something positive. The problem is when men seeking power use religion to gain control. It is easy to read the bible and find many contradictions between what God has said and what the religious right teaches. America is due for a religious revolution, like Thomas Paine discussed in The Age of Reason. It is not belief in God that Liberals have a problem with, but how people in power take advantage of that belief to gain control.

Posted by: David S at July 10, 2006 12:13 PM
Comment #166306
Blacks have been equal since the 1960s, and Hitler and the Nazis are dead… Posted by: stubborn conservative at July 10, 2006 11:49 AM
Maybe 1 of 3 right isn’t too bad for a con?

David S,

Great post! But will they listen?

Posted by: Dave1 at July 10, 2006 12:21 PM
Comment #166318

David,

Why is it that liberals so often equate “closed minded” with disagreeing with them? Are you open minded towards Harry’s position on gays?

Posted by: Carnak at July 10, 2006 1:20 PM
Comment #166326

iandanger:

that is not the reason why I support Israel. I support it because of other religious and political reasons.

Political: Israel defeated Egypt, Syria, and Jordan hours after it became a country. We trade diamonds for weapons. Hamas hates us and threatened to attack us with terrorism after the new Israeli PM was elected.

Religious: God said that He would bless the nations that support Israel. Israel would never be at peace with the Palestinians. 9/11, in my belief, happened because we were considering to stop support to Israel.

I didn’t just think of these reasons. Sources: Bible, Rush Limbaugh, some cia website about nations and their economies.

Posted by: stubborn conservative at July 10, 2006 1:46 PM
Comment #166328

Carnak,

Are you suggesting it is closed minded to be unaccepting of a closed mind who starts a post by calling liberals “turds”? There’s a big difference between calling hate speech unacceptable vs. calling inclusive speech of what you feel is unacceptable behavior as unacceptable. (Clumsy sentence structure but you know what I mean)
Harry would be a Taliban if born in Afghanistan, don’t you want to kill now?

Posted by: Dave1 at July 10, 2006 1:50 PM
Comment #166329

Carnak-

I think people who are against gay marriage are close minded because there is no compelling argument against it other than “tradition”. There is no evidence that societal disaster would follow gay marriage. The very definition of “closed minded” is resistance to change, especially when you are resistant to change regardless of facts.

As to whether I am open minded towards his position, I am very open minded to any argument on any side of any issue. However, I have yet to hear a strong argument against gay marriage aside from “homosexuality is wrong”. This is an opinion, not an argument and certainly not a basis for ammendment of the constitution. I would argue that divorce is wrong, and further that there are measurable negative effects on society as a result of divorce. Why no ammendment against that?

He can believe whatever he wants, and things that some people choose to do may make him feel uncomfortable. There are things people choose to do that make me feel uncomfortable, but such is life.

Posted by: David S at July 10, 2006 1:54 PM
Comment #166339

David S -

Accordng to dictionary.com, close-mindedness is

Intolerant of the beliefs and opinions of others; stubbornly unreceptive to new ideas.

or

not ready to receive to new ideas.

Being ready to receive new ideas or being intolerant of the beliefs of others does not correlate with willingness to accept change.

There are good reasons not to accept change for the sake of change that have nothing to do with refusing to try to understand the arguments for change.

Btw, we are all close-minded when it confirms our biases. Dave, do you want to consider arguments for establishing a monarchy in America, I don’t. I would put them off as preposterous rather than try to debate the point.

All that being said, I agree with you on the gay marriage issue.

Posted by: Rob at July 10, 2006 2:18 PM
Comment #166347

I would say that “stubbornly unreceptive to new ideas” is the same as “resistant to change”. New ideas = change. Without new ideas, there can be no progress. Without new ideas, we will never be more than we are now. Abolishing slavery was a new idea. Desegragation was a new idea. Women’s suffrage was a new idea. Equal rights for homosexuals is a new idea.

Further, I would say that the basis of being anti-gay is an “intolerance for the opinions or beliefs of others”. The Liberal social agenda is by definition inclusive of all who wish to live their lives free of judgement in peace with their neighbors. The conservative social agenda is to establish an acceptable and an unacceptable and then work tirelessly to marginalize the unacceptable. Therefore, the conservative movement is close-minded in its very nature.

Posted by: David S at July 10, 2006 2:38 PM
Comment #166354

David,

If tradition is the only argument for restricting marriage to the current man/woman arrangement couldn’t you make the argument that tradition is the same reason we outlaw plural marriages? Are you open minded to those?

I don’t think you can equate divorce to gay marriage because altough I do believe that both are bad, divorce is sometimes unavoidable.

As to the actual impact of gay marriage i think that if legalized there would be an intitial rush of marriages after which there would be very few. I do not believe that most gays are in support of gay marriage for the legal benefits it gives them. I believe the issue is making society accept the gay life style as normal and legalizing marriage gives this life style an offical stamp of approval.

Posted by: Carnak at July 10, 2006 2:50 PM
Comment #166358

Carnak-

The argument against plural marriages also includes the history of abuse, as well as the difficulty in determining legal rights upon the death of the male (assuming it is a traditional single male, multiple female arrangement). That is a legal issue of number of participants in a contract. The gay marriage issue is one of limiting the people who can eneter into a contract based on sex, and that is blatantly unconstitutional.

I agree with you on your predictions of what will happen once gay marriage is legallized nationwide, only I don’t view it as a stamp of approval as much as removing the stigma of disapproval. I know it is a small difference, but it is a difference.

Still, you have not made any convincing argument against making it legal. In fact, you’ve backed the argumnet that this is all much ado about nothing. If there is no major harmful effect to society why insist on separate treatment?

The answer is that many on the right believe there will be a major harmful effect on society. That homosexuality will spread rampant through our homes, schools and churches. These people view homosexuality as a disease that should be stopped. They are afraid of something that they have never taken a moment to try and understand. They have been fed fear by those in charge (back to the original topic of this thread). There is no danger in allowing homosexuals to marry, but the leaders of the religious right have played on people’s fears as a power play. As long as they are so scared about the gays moving in next door, they won’t notice that you are robbing them blind, sending their children to war and sending their jobs to the lowest bidder. The American public is being sold the lie that their salvation is on the line, that the fight for eternity starts now, so donate all you can and check the box next to the big “R”. We know times are tough, we know you lost your job, we know your son has been in Iraq chasing ghosts for two years, but at least you won’t have to see those two gay guys holding hands. WAKE UP!

Posted by: David S at July 10, 2006 3:13 PM
Comment #166362

David S,

To paraphrase Lewis Black;

“The fight against recognizing Gays is the fight against the horror of having Gay men prancing around in black robes (with tastefully matching high heels) screwing willy nilly, on the front lawns of the typical American family, and thus ruining their typical American diner”.

It may be generations before the “good” Christian right realizes that they are tilting after windmills and wake up to the fact that if you take away the sex, gays in America are just like everybody else. They go to work and pay their taxes.
They deserve better.

Posted by: Rocky at July 10, 2006 3:34 PM
Comment #166381

The religious right takes a few topics change the wording to suit their agenda . anti abortsion to pro life when the real issuse is pro choice or anti choice. To discriminate against a segment of our society just because they dont conformto your ideal of normal is wrong. Those that vote because these issuses do at their own economical well being. Just look at the failure to raise minimum wage for the last 7 years so if they want to live where the republicans want to give the Hilton sisters a tax cut on money they had nothing to do with earning just, the luck of the right gene pool then go on voting republican.I want them to give the name of a family farm that had to be sold to pay inheritance tax. A T>R REPUBLICAN

Posted by: Earl at July 10, 2006 5:30 PM
Comment #166383

Earl-

What is a T R Republican? Teddy Roosevelt?

Posted by: David S at July 10, 2006 5:47 PM
Comment #166395

.Yes that is right if the republican party would adopt his philosphies on both the enviroment and the place of corprate america this would be abetter America. I dont when the republican left his wing maybe when he broke off and started the bull moose party, but politics in America lost out.A TR Roosevelt Republican Earl

Posted by: Earl at July 10, 2006 6:30 PM
Comment #166434

Religious extreamism, liberal extreamism, both are wrong.

Posted by: RAK at July 10, 2006 8:27 PM
Comment #166452

Not to mention conservative extremism eh RAK.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 10, 2006 9:46 PM
Comment #166496

iandanger,

I meant exactly what I said, the liberal belief system’s end result is a narcissistic and hedonistic society with no regards for the greater good. Under the tenents of liberalism, success in business should not be celebrated but punished. Any form of restraint of one’s personal behavior is seen as oppression, no matter what the consequences of that behavior may be. Under the liberal mindset, there should be nothing wrong with a father having sex with his daughter so long as they are both consenting adults. The major problem of liberalism to me is that it uses concepts such as “tolerance” as an excuse for condoning perversion, mysogeny, drug abuse, and damned near any other anti-social behavior.

David S,

Once again the typical “opiate of the masses” nonsense. Religion has a set of clear-cut absolute morals. Those of us who are religios try to live them and support them. Since they are absolute and well known, we should be unified in our views. That does not make us sheep. If you want to talk about flock-like, why don’t you go hang out with those lemmings riding Cindy Sheehan’s coattails?

As far as your economic arguement goes, once again, typical communist manifesto nonsense. The United States has the largest economy in the world, one of the highest standards of living, and creates more jobs than any other in the developed world. We are the leaders of innovation in almost every field. If some people out there are stupid enough to believe that they can live off of social security alone to retire, that’s their own fault. I took responsibility for myself and figutred out I need to invest. I’ll be fine when my time to retire comes around, at least until the liberals decide to once again subsidize stupidity and take what I’ve spent a lifetime saving to give to some parasite who didn’t bother to think ahead.

Oh by the way, WE’RE AT WAR!! Nations tend to spend money when that happens. But perhaps you’re right. After all, I don’t live in NYC or DC or LA, you know, places targeted by terrorists. Why the hell should I care if some miserable cave-dwelling lunatic wants to blow up my country? After all, in the liberal world, they aren’t hurting me, so why should I risk my life to protect people I don’t know? Answer: I’m not a worthless, cowardly liberal who knows how to bash our leaders in a time of war while relying on others with a sense of patriotism and responsibility for the greater good to risk their lives in my defense while I sit at home reading the communist manifesto.

Posted by: 1LT B at July 11, 2006 3:18 AM
Comment #166505

1LT B,

But you are wrong about what you say in re liberalism. Liberalism is always concerned with the greater good, you just don’t understand what you are talking about. The value of personal freedom, without limitation, is that it allows all people to express themselves. In the marketplace of ideas, absolute free expression is necessary so that all opinions can be given full weight. Open debate allows the most correct ideas to continue and weeds out the most absurd ones. Now, the key concept is that a person is free to do as they please until the moment that their action harms another person. This is because the government’s role should not grow large enough to get involved otherwise.

Now, dealing with your overall opinion about religion. People need things to believe because they have difficulty dealing with the futility of reality. Life is short and painful and dark, and without the hope of some sort of future or purpose, we become despondent. Religion fills that void, but it is not necessarily the only thing which can fulfill that purpose. Philosophies which are grounded in humanism can offer morality just as well as any religion, so long as they are focused on the concept of functionality.

And as for drug use, do you drink caffine, have you ever smoked a ciggarette, or drank a beer? These are all drugs, and yet everyone seems to have tried at least one. How many Christians have a cup of coffee every morning? How many can’t get to work without their cup of joe in the AM? This is drug addiction, though it may not be debilitating like heroin, it is the same behavior. Should we not ban caffine? What about cigarettes, they are a dangerous drug which harms more than just those smoking them, but they dont just sell, they sell amazingly. People will pay just about anything for them, as demonstrated by their continuing strong sales after major taxes have been added. All these drugs are not really different, from a moral standpoint, than the drugs which are illegal. All but a few drugs have useful effects, such as opiates used as pain killers, and bad sides, addiction to pain killers or heroin. The problem with a state telling us what we can and can’t do is that it takes the power of determining what will make us most happy out of the hands of the individual, who knows himself, and puts it into a system which is too large and impersonal to do what is best for that person. Each of us makes decisions each day which determine what will make us the most happy, and the government should only be there to allow these decisions to happen, to facilitate, not to direct.

Posted by: iandanger at July 11, 2006 7:24 AM
Comment #166506

Also, the problem with our spending habits is that we have continually cut taxes during massive increases in spending. This is an absolutely foolish idea, its like quitting your night job and taking out a car loan and renting a bigger house. Our interest payments already make up a large portion of the yearly budget, and this will only get worse. We need to control spending next year, meaning bring back pay go and cut everything possible. If something really requires federal money badly enough, then the representatives of our government will find a way to pay for it, otherwise it isn’t worth the damage we are doing to our economy in the future.

Also, as to your comments about saving, lets not forget that our entire nation has a problem with this, starting from the government, but also in our massive trade deficit, and our recently negative total savings for the nation. “Conservative” politicians are setting a bad example for everyone else by ignoring the consequences of debt.

Posted by: iandanger at July 11, 2006 7:34 AM
Comment #166520

1LT B,

” Under the liberal mindset, there should be nothing wrong with a father having sex with his daughter so long as they are both consenting adults. The major problem of liberalism to me is that it uses concepts such as “tolerance” as an excuse for condoning perversion, mysogeny, drug abuse, and damned near any other anti-social behavior.”

You seem to get your talking points straight from the whacked wing pundits, because if you are truly as young as you claim, it couldn’t possibly be from experience.

Drug abuse is slamming down a six-pack everyday after work.
Were you aware the in the ’70s and ’80s, during the height of the cocaine “epidemic” the number 1 abused drug was Valium?

If you actually knew the definition of misogyny, you would realize it isn’t a liberal trait, and not one that is “tolerated”.

Gay marriage, maybe, but incest? Son that’s really out there.

You need to go back to the dictionary and learn the meanings of the words you use to pigeon hole what you perceive as liberals.

Posted by: Rocky at July 11, 2006 9:37 AM
Comment #167580

Just a few comments.

I am not Christian and am upset whenever laws are proposed or are enacted that conflict with the practice of my faith. The founders did not intend to have one religious belief system dominate in crital areas, but it has.

A comment was made regardeing finding money to support spending. I agree with this, but am upset that the current adminstration that backs a war is unwilling to raise taxes, as has been done in the past for all major wars, to fund it. In fact, it has cut taxes, further increasing the problem,

Posted by: M. L. Schneider at July 14, 2006 4:05 PM
Post a comment