Bring It On

AFA Goes After NBC

These people are nothing but racists but we can beat them at their own game. They have a nice form letter here for their racist followers to sign and send to the Chairman of NBC.

Dear Chairman Wright:

I am disappointed that NBC has decided to air "The Book of Daniel."  I know that AFA will keep us posted on which companies desire to underwrite this program.

We are told in Hebrews that "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever."  Obviously you don't believe that.  It would be beneficial to all if NBC showed a little more respect for Christians who believe the Bible.

I ask you to inform all NBC affiliates, in writing, (according to your testimony before a Congressional hearing last year) they are not required to air this program if they choose not to.

I suggest you click on it and delete the letter they have pre-written and send a letter of support to NBC for not caving into these bastards. Here is what I sent to them:

Dear Chairman Wright:

Do not bow down to these people. They are racists and bigots. Strong words but there seems to be no other way to describe them. I for one will boycott your station if you cave into these people.

Come on people, they did half the work for you now you just have to send a letter with their letterhead stating that you support the network for not caving into their racist demands.

If you do send a letter and I hope you do, copy and paste it back here so all can know what has been sent under the disguise of the AFA. [Insert evil laugh here]

A Challenge for Scientists to Stop Terrorism

Written by Icoman:

Religion is a touchy subject for most people. In light of religious terrorism Science has taken an objective look at religion. Building on the November 22^nd posting on this blog entitled “Objective Religious Study” we can look at Scott Atkins, a Clinical Psychologist and Cognitive Anthropologist, for his work in the book “In Gods We Trust”. Studies show that social animals have a natural instinct for fairness and justice. It is critical for the survival of their species. All primates, including humans, along with wolves and other social critters instinctively know that murder, cheating, greed and theft are wrong. We all naturally reward altruism and unselfish benevolence. With or without religions people would probably still have the hospitals and charitable organizations as we see that most international good will groups are secular. However, only humans are characterized with murder, war and executions. Also, only humans have religions. Is there a connection? President Bush, along with Muslim and Christian fundamentalists, should stop the slaughter for a minute to look at history and the current scientific research.

Religious terrorism and persecution have been major causes of violence, suffering and death among innocent people for centuries. However, it appears that throwing bombs and bullets at religious terrorism is like pouring jet fuel on a raging fire to put it out. Clearly, another approach is desperately needed. In order to formulate a better policy it becomes necessary to understand religion. It is critical to be able to approach religious leaders with simple demonstrations that display our psychological nature and how this relates to religious intolerance. A challenge to the scientific community is to construct these examples in a way that they are basically indisputable so that they will serve to convince the vast majority that we must change the way we think about religion.

Why are religious beliefs often the cause of extreme responses whenever they are under attack? First off, everybody is convinced that they are right. It’s called Cognitive Consonance and it’s critical for good mental health. We may go through times of depression when we doubt ourselves, question our thinking or actually believe that we are wrong. These are periods of Cognitive Dissonance and people will go out of their way to avoid these periods, if possible, usually because of the danger to their mental balance.

Therefore, we currently have over six billion people in the world who think that they are right. Fine, this is perfectly normal behavior. The problem occurs when an individual or group thinks that they are perfectly right and that everybody else is wrong. This is called intolerance and it can lead to conflicts that occasionally become violent because it may have created Dissonance. But intolerance could occur with any line of thinking. So why do religious conflicts often lead to such extreme Dissonance Avoidance? To find out let’s start by taking a quick look at the origin of religions.

As human groups or tribes grew in size it became necessary to insure trust and cooperation among the members simply for protection from outside tribes who may want to control the same territory and resources. Over time, initiation rites and frequent rituals were developed to better forge and strengthen tribal loyalty. As some members traveled off to more remote regions, deities and other metaphysical spirits were employed as overseers to keep the tribe together in spirit. These practices eventually evolved into the religious rites and beliefs we have today. Virtually every culture unearthed that has existed over the past 40,000 years had religions and deities. It explains, among other things, why some members will sacrifice themselves for the benefit of the tribe. This also explains why there are so many religions and sects. These ingroup structures, by nature, are divisive and purposely serve to create separatism and hostility.

The ingroup/outgroup designation, or our tribe versus your tribe, was very important for survival. This means, however, that the rules that applied within a tribe may not necessarily extend to members of other tribes. For example, when Moses descended from the mountain with the commandment not to kill, one of the first things he did was to order the death of all who had sinned while he was gone. He then led the Jews on a blood soaked trek back to their homeland. Today we hear most Muslims say that Islam is a religion of peace and yet we continue to see vicious and murdering assaults in the name of Allah. These examples may seem like a paradox but to a scientist there is no paradox. This is exactly what is to be expected from ingroup religious structures.

So, this ingroup/outgroup behavior explains why religions can be very pugnacious. Further study shows even more reasons that contribute to extreme religious reactions. To understand these reasons we have to look back at our evolutionary ancestors and at the common traits that began near the early phases of the development of life itself.

Survival ability is the predominant criteria in evolution’s Natural Selection. Life forms that possessed better defenses against and/or detection of predators gained the edge over others and advanced. Early on, fear of death motivated the quick escape from any surrounding movement or noise that was unfamiliar. A grazing deer will suddenly dart away when the brush makes a sound. Even though the cause may have only been the wind, she imagined it to be her most feared predator. If she was wrong then she lost nothing but if she was right then she lived to see another day. Psychologists term these imagined causes as “agents”. As human brains developed over time these agents grew in our imagination. Eventually, these invisible agents regularly became creatures in myths and fables that were passed down through the generations.

After awhile, besides predation, some of these imagined agents were assigned to explanations for other events. Agents became wonderful mythological characters that put the stars in the sky, sent volcanoes erupting, carried the sun and the moon across the heavens, caused the rain to fall and essentially solved all of the mysteries that humans could come up with. As tribal customs evolved these invisible agents easily became the overseers that watched the members wherever they traveled and insured their vital trust and cooperation. Some of these agents eventually became the powerful deities represented by the religious idols that were worshipped frequently in the tribal rituals.

The fact that these deities evolved from such a critical core survival mechanism deep within the human psyche serves to explain why any attack on the belief of these deities or the rituals used to worship them can result in some extremely negative reactions. Such attacks on one’s belief systems can create the greatest amount of Dissonance possible and can frequently elicit the ultimate defense mechanisms. Understanding these basic human instincts is essential to understanding right wing religious terrorism and persecution.

Civilization and education will bring these facts to light for most around the world. This may be why the Islamic extremists fear civilization and seek to destroy it. But we don’t have time to educate the whole world in Psychology and Cognitive Anthropology. This is why we need Scientists today who can present the experiments and demonstrations to the important leaders around the world who can make a difference. We are certainly not going to get rid of religions, at least not in the near future, but we can do a lot towards convincing many that these troubled times call for a reconsideration of how we came to where we are today and what solutions can be brought into play to prevent the terrible destruction continually wrought by religious extremists.

From The First to The Fourth Amendments; The Constitution Rules

I thought I would continue The Christmas Wars.  No, if I never hear about any holiday, secular or not, again I will be very happy.  And I have banned certain words from my vocabula

I want to briefly talk about Judge Jones and the Intelligent Design decison.  No, I don't.  I want to gloat over it.  Why?  Several months back I wrote a post that used very similiar reasoning to Judge Jones's.

Why when we at Bring it on! have been saying this since we began am I bringing this up now?  Because many radical Christian Rightists still don't get it.  It's simple; it's the Amendment that guarantees the most basic of rights, the right to practice or not practice a religion, and never have to worry that a state religion will be formed, and also and equal, guarantees freedom of speech.

That's the first time I have ever quoted myself.  I explained how faith is untestable.  No matter how much you want to believe that something bigger than us created the universe, nobody is able to test faith.

It's easy to test one type of faith: Faith in ones ability to do something.  I have faith that I will cross the street without being killed.  If I'm not, I have prove my hypothesis.  But the type of faith that proponents of Intelligent Design believe in is simply not testable.

Here's Judge Jones;

To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.

If you haven't read Judge Jones decision; I have linked it.  Okay I have gloated enough.

                                                   *************************************

I found an article in Foxnews.com that blew me away.  Yes, really. Fox or as we like to call it here Faux News.   It's by Martin Frost, former Democratic Congressman from Dallas/Fort Worth  He was in Congress for 26 years, and isn't faux anything.

Recently I have been trying to figure out who President Bush reminded me of.

Was it Richard Nixon with his willingness to break the law to hold onto the presidency? Was it FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover who bugged Martin Luther King Jr. and anyone he considered to be a political enemy?

And then it struck me. President Bush most closely resembles King George III of England. You remember him -- he’s the guy whose high-handed rule led to the American Revolution.

Frost reread The Constitution; he's a lawyer, was a Fellow at the Institute of Politics, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, and was a Congressman for a long time.  When he talks about the Fourth Amendment I will listen:

Now the "new King George" would have us believe one of three things: (1) the president’s powers as commander-in-chief supersede the fourth amendment during the war on terror (2) the resolution adopted by Congress shortly after the 9/11 attack can be read to give the president the authority to conduct domestic wiretaps against American citizens without going to court to seek a warrant and (3) modern technology is such that the founding fathers could never have anticipated the need to conduct wiretaps without a warrant.

Let's see Frost debase these arguments:

First, it takes a very broad reading of the commander-in-chief clause to justify any conduct as superseding the constitution. President Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus during the U.S. Civil War, an action that was very controversial at the time; it is hard to equate the ongoing war on terror with the American Civil War, which threatened the very existence of the Republic.

Second, I was a member of Congress when we passed the resolution giving the president the authority to use all force necessary against the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. Congress clearly meant this as authorization to go into Afghanistan and find Usama bin Laden. No one ever thought this authorized our government to wiretap American citizens in our own country without court approval.

Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle wrote an op-ed piece in the Dec. 23rd Washington Post detailing how the Bush administration proposed last minute language to the 9/11 resolution which would have given the president the power to engage in domestic spying without a search warrant, and that this language was specifically rejected by the bills’ authors.

And third, the modern technology argument is an interesting one but is not very persuasive. Congress in 1978 passed legislation permitting spying inside the United States under certain circumstances. That law created a special court that can respond within hours to a request for search warrants. And the law also contained an exception, permitting the Attorney General to authorize wiretaps in an emergency situation and then seek a warrant within 72 hours.

Frost then asks if Bush...  Oh, he says it so well, and I never want to be accused of mangling words.

Does he simply want dictatorial powers? Does he so mistrust the court system (even a secret one specifically set up to make it easier to wiretap people inside the United States) that he doesn’t want any of the traditional checks on the power of the executive to violate basic civil liberties? Does he just want a political issue that makes him look tough and opponents (Democrats and some Republicans) look weak?

This is our country and this is our Constitution. Even if for some reason you like Bush, he has seriously abused the powers of the presidency.  Don't tell me that I'm convicting him without a trial.  What has Bush been doing?  Here's the one question that you should ask yourself:

"The Bush administration simply cannot answer this one question - if time was of the essence, why didn't they conduct the searches and get the warrants after the fact, something that is allowed under the FISA law? They conducted the searches alright, but they never once sought the retroactive warrants."

Then join us, Bulldog, and the entire Impeach Bush Blog Coalition in taking these steps:

2. Send an email to all of these media folks and ask them "The Question."

3. Sign Senator Boxer's petition .

4. Contact your senator.

5. Contact your congressman.

6. Contact Congressman Pete Hoekstra too.

7. File a Freedom of Information Act request HERE.

8. Sign John Conyers' petition to censure and investigate impeachment.

9. Join the guerilla marketing campaign .

10. Make a donation to ImpeachPAC.

11. Join the Impeach Bush Coalition.


(Thanks to Redneck Mother for inspiring the list.)

Please read the articles in The Impeach Bush Coalition.  More people and newspapers than you would imagine are joining us.  Join with everybody at BIO, in calling for an impeachment hearing.  It's the only way that we're going to ever learn anything unless Bush muzzles the prosecuter, and that's a possiblity that our Congress, and judical system won't allow.  Why?  We have an incredible Constitution and Bill of Rights. Nobody will allow that to be mocked.

We already know that Fitzgerald is incredible; he's the perfect antitode to Ken Starr and that mockery of an impeachment hearing..  Maybe lying about sex is a minor crime; but everything Bush has been doing is a high crime and misdemenor.

Let me end by saying that the only way 2006 can be a great year is by getting rid of Bush and all the Bushettes.

Personally I would like to thank everybody at BIO! for being so great; and Bulldog for beginning the Impeach Bush Coalition.

Let the lost children of New Orleans be found; New Orleans to be rebuilt quickly, and bring the troops home now, please.  We don't belong in Iraq; it's the only way we can ensure their safety.

Peace in 2006.

Of Men, of God, and Godless Men

Implying you are favored because you have faith does not negate the impact of the deeds done. Here to put that far more eleoquently that I can, is this week’s guest author, Jones of the Nile.

Dick Cheney is a man of God.  The 50 Senators who voted with him on Wednesday to cut federal deficits by $39.7 billion are also God-fearing (and God-loving!) men and women of moral values. 

Or so they’ll have you believe, while behind closed doors they cash in their Bibles for tax cuts, and their rosaries for special interest dollars.

Wednesday’s 51-50 vote in the Senate (with Cheney as the tie-breaker) on the federal deficit will likely be a monumental blow to millions of middle-class, working Americans, who will wake up today and find out that, as Dallas Morning News Washington Bureau Chief Carl Leubsdorf put it, “On its way out of town, Congress voted to give millions of Americans the fiscal equivalent of coal for their Christmas stockings.” 

Leubsdorf’s column explains well what this measure will do: It will raise the cost of student loans for millions of college students by raising interest rates. It will increase health care costs for millions of poor and elderly Americans by curbing benefits in Medicare and Medicaid. It will prevent millions of taxpayers from claiming local and statewide sales taxes on their federal income tax returns.

And here’s what the measure won’t do: It won’t significantly (or even nominally) reduce the U.S. deficit, which has ballooned under President Bush with the blind approval of the Republican-led Congress.

I’m struck by a very cruel sense of irony.  All over our TV screens we have folks who claim they are people of faith crusading over one issue or another. Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and their ilk have taken to putting the “Christ” back in Christmas, believing the holiday is under siege by misguided secular Americans. Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, flipped his lid this week after a judge in Pennsylvania ruled that intelligent design belongs in a church and not in public school science classes, saying “This decision is a poster child for a half-century secularist reign of terror that's coming to a rapid end with Justice Roberts and soon-to-be Justice Alito.” And who could forget Pat Robertson’s call for the assassination of a world leader (or his wish of terror for the town of Dover, PA); Rev. Jerry Falwell blaming gays and pro-choice advocates for 9/11; the Web site “Repent America” saying that New Orleans deserved Hurricane Katrina because it promoted an annual conference for GLBT people…

I could go on and on. And while this group of ‘onward Christian soldiers’ marches on, 50 Christians and one lapsed Jew (Sen. Norm Coleman from Minnesota) voted on Wednesday to short-change the poor and cut social spending. Meanwhile, tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans continue to fly out of the halls of Congress to the mouths of corporate fat cats. 

The hypocrisy is enough to make even the most compassionate person lose faith and hope. As someone who tries to pursue a spirituality of justice, I find myself often in dark places, ready to write off human nature, God, the Creator, or whatever it is that makes this world tick.  But in those dark places, I’m drawn to a quote by a nun named Joan Chittister, who writes a weekly progressive, faith-based column here. Here are Joan’s words…

“If what we wait for is not within us in the first place, we wait in vain. To wait with anxiety for peace is never to be peaceful. To wait for public success without feeling good about ourselves is to never know achievement. To wait for the spiritual life without a continuing sense of the presence of God is to be consumers of religion, perhaps, but to miss its meaning.”

Maybe it’s not religion itself that leaves a distaste in peoples’ mouths.  Perhaps it’s the consumers of religion – those who have little interest in trying to live a life rooted in compassion for the common good, but a lot of interest in playing religious “gotcha”.

Earlier this week I read a poem by Ewuare Osayande, an author and activist in Philadelphia, that he wrote after Hurricane Katrina. To close, here’s a quick excerpt:

they are pulling our dead out of the dead water now
counting them as if they were tallying votes
but you cannot measure disgrace with a body-count
and no one wins in death

what have we now but our heartbeats?
and tears
and the whys
of our questions keep coming

even Jesus was said
to have fed the poor
with a few fish and some bread
should we not expect more
from the richest nation
in the history of the world?

Cruel irony, indeed, that during the holiday season our lawmakers and TV moguls use their religion to seek power over others, instead of empowering the common good.

Saved

Some Christians have come to the conclusion that the only way to “be saved” is through Jesus Christ. The point is that Jesus came to Earth and preached his message. He didn’t write down his message, but those who heard his message wrote it down, and we have multiple versions of Jesus’ time on Earth and the message that he preached. The question is: How do we address the message that Jesus left behind for us to follow? What better way to explain what Jesus meant than through a parable. I hope that this parable will lend some insight into what Jesus taught us.

There were two twins from a military family. Their mother had been called up a couple of months ago and their father had just been called up to report on November 1. The two young men were seniors in High School and they really wanted to finish their school year and graduate with their High School classmates. Their father thought that these young men were certainly responsible for their age and capable of living at home for the time that they would be away. They were both 18, which meant that they were legally adults, but they had not been away from home to live on their own. The father created an extensive list of instructions for them to follow. He gave them his e-mail address so that they could communicate with him while he was away. On Halloween the three of them dressed up as ghosts to celebrate the new responsibility that they would all face over the next few months. They all hoped that they would be reunited in June for their graduation. One of the instructions that he gave his sons was that they should eat three meals a day without snacks and exercise at least an hour a day.

The one son followed his father’s advice legalistically. He ate breakfast at 7:00 am everyday. For breakfast he usually ate pancakes or waffles with lots of syrup. He was careful to eat as much as he could, because he feared that he would get hungry before lunch. He ate Lunch at noon every day. He ate grilled ham and cheese, a bag of potato chips and a milk shake. He wanted to pack as many calories as he could so that he wouldn’t get hungry before dinner. He ate dinner at 6:00 pm every day. For dinner he liked to go to Joe’s diner where he spent two hours at the “all you can eat buffet.” He went to the tennis or golf club every day for an hour. Most of the time he stood around and talked with the guys at the club.

The other son believed that it was more important to understand how his body was using its food. This son didn’t worry so much about when he ate. Instead he ate a good mix of food over the entire day. He began to understand how many calories he ate everyday and how many calories he burned in his exercise. When he ran hard for an hour he realized that he could eat a few more calories than when he worked out less strenuously.

The father and mother came home for graduation and there was much rejoicing. The first son was about eighty pounds over weight, while the second son was fit and trim. The father accused the first son of not following his advice, although we all know that he technically did everything that the father had told him. The second son was assumed to have followed the father’s advice although he had not. His father praised him.

This is like the Christians who are getting the message from Jesus. They are told to follow the teachings of Jesus and then they will be saved. But, the Christians are focused on the legalistic implications of what Jesus taught and not the life Jesus wants you to lead. Jesus preached for us to love each other and form a Christian community. Jesus preached the importance of feeding, clothing and housing the poor. Jesus taught us to be peacemakers and to heal disagreements among us. However, the Christians that quote that we need to legalistically be saved through Jesus don’t think about the people that God has inspired in other ways.

The so-called Christians of the religious right create legalistic arguments for why they can cut programs meant to help the poor. They tell us that the government shouldn't be aiding the poor, but other private organizations should be used to help the poor. The argument is a legalistic argument used to defend the selfish that would rather not spend their money on the poor. So, yesterday they cut 40 billion dollars in assistance to the poor so they could give tax breaks to the wealthy. The point is not how we can legalistically save ourselves money, but how Jesus would want us to have a healthy spiritual life.

But the true Christians know what Jesus meant by his teachings. True Christians know that Jesus wanted us to comfort the lonely, clothe the poor, feed the hungry, care for the sick and love thy neighbor. So, Merry Christmas to the Christians! And, remember what Christmas means, Peace on Earth Good Will to Men. And, Happy Holiday to everyone else...

Religion, Christianity, Jesus

This is where my gratefulness ends

....there can be surprises like the one that happened in Manhasset on Dec. 2, when the Rev. Nick Zientarski invoked "Jesus Christ, our Lord" in blessing the Christmas tree at a public ceremony....

That is where I draw the line.

Town Supervisor Jon Kaiman, who had presided at the ceremony, was heard muttering angrily during the blessing. After Father Zientarski finished, Mr. Kaiman stood up and addressed the crowd of about 200.

"This is inappropriate," the supervisor said of the invocation. "I just want to make it clear that this is in no way a religious ceremony."

Mr. Kaiman's response was considered rude by an overwhelming majority of several hundred people who e-mailed or phoned his office afterward to complain.

Manhasset is a village in the town of North Hempstead in Nassau County, Long Island.  While Manhasset might be "overwhelmingly" Christian; North Hempstead isn't.  But that's beside the point.  A display is one thing; reciting The Lords Prayer is something else.  That is pointed and exclusionary. I expect better from Long Island where I was raised thinking all religions were equal.

A prominent local citizen, the Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly, who has made what he calls the "war on Christmas" a regular feature of "The O'Reilly Factor," scolded Mr. Kaiman on the air.

Mr. Kaiman received several hundred emails and phone calls in protest.

"We have a national holiday called Christmas and the central meaning of Christmas is the birth of Jesus."

That person is right.  Maybe Christmas shouldn't be a national holiday.  While I personally enjoy Christmas and the holiday season--properly called holiday as it goes from Thanksgiving to New Years, often I had to work much overtime to make up for the two days I would take off during the year for the Jewish Holidays.  It did annoy me especially when Good Friday was also a recognized holiday.

This past week I wrote about Christmas and being grateful.  On a comment in another blog my post was in, somebody couldn't understand how I could be grateful to the founding fathers as they are no longer alive.  Hello.  I'm grateful for their foresight.  I am grateful to the huge majority of Christians in this country who recognize that legally America is a secular country.

When I read something like the quote above, and when I read about The Lords Prayer being recited in a public place without other religions being represented, my respect for the Founding Fathers, for the Constitution, for The First Amendment deepens.

We have a president who believes that he is above the law as evidenced by his radio address yesterday, which I'm not going to get into.  He consulted with a "Christian" leader before announcing a Supreme Court nominee.  Again I'm grateful to all the wiser heads who prevailed.

Get it through your heads.  This is my country also; as it is every Hindu, Sikh, Muslim, etc., who are citizens. 

Don't like the changing demographics? 

Leave.

Leave it to us who really love and feel grateful for America and the promises it holds.  Again in that thread on another blog, I was told that every person who is a citizen of a free country should just accept it, and not think about it.

I don't wake up every morning and say:

"Thank G-d, I'm an American."

But I'm glad that my ancestors settled here.  My family has done well here.  We have prospered in ways that might have been impossible anywhere else.  My father probably wouldn't have been able to go to college in another country.  That he was able to was considered to be a miracle by his parents.

I'm glad that I live in a country where I can feel free to protest what I see as wrong.  The reason I wrote the post the other day was that I went to several blogs to comment.  They talked about minority groups coming here and protesting traditional values and ways; they ended with The Lord's Prayer.  What could I say?

As a Jew I did feel insulted.  I could easily blend into the fiber of the country and the blog world.  I don't even believe in G-d.  But I respect how much people have gone through the centuries to remain Jewish. I'm proud to be Jewish; I'm proud to be American, and I'm proud that I have been able to navigate through many cultures and religions.

This is from another article on the same subject.

The Christmas"defense" movement is starting to be openly anti-Semitic. The two people Mr. O'Reilly has demonized the most frequently on the issue are Jon Stewart, host of Comedy Central's "The Daily Show," and George Soros, the billionaire financier whom O'Reilly has called the "moneyman" behind the anti-Christmas movement. The New York Post, owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation — the same company that owns Fox News — recently put a story on its front page under the headline "Treeson" about a Jewish town supervisor from Long Island who tried to keep Christian prayers out of a government-sponsored tree-lighting ceremony.

Charges that Jews are behind the "War on Christmas" are beginning to be made directly. The president of Liberty Counsel, a conservative religious group, stated on Fox last year that a Florida mayor was conducting a vendetta against a nativity scene at least partly because he "apparently is Jewish." When a Jewish caller to Mr. O'Reilly's radio show objected to Christmas in the schools, and said that he "grew up with a resentment because I felt that people were trying to convert me to Christianity," Mr. O'Reilly responded. "If you are really offended, you gotta go to Israel."

No, Mr. O'Reilly, this is my country. Israel is not the point here. I neither speak the language nor feel at home there.  Again, this is my country. Three generations of my family lived here before me; another generation is growing up now.

The nation is rapidly becoming more religiously diverse. The percentage of the population that describes itself as Christian has declined to 77 percent in 2000, from 86 percent in 1990. The biggest increase has been in people who do not identify themselves with any religion, a group that has more than doubled since 1990.

America is still very much a country of Christians, these numbers show. But nearly a quarter of the country, representing as many as 70 million people, is not Christian. It stands to reason that stores and politicians would try to take into account the inclinations of such a large part of the population.

So Mr. O'Reilly if anybody leaves I suggest that you do. If you had a parent or grandparent born in Ireland you can become a citizen.

See how stupid this debate can become?  I tried suggesting that people enjoy the secular aspects of Chistmas.  John Gibson works with Bill O'Reilly.

Mr. Gibson takes up the cause of Sherrie Versher, the mother of a 10 1/2-year-old public school student in Plano, Texas. For her daughter Stephanie's birthday, Ms. Versher brought 24 brownies to school, to which she wanted to attach pencils that contained the message: "Jesus Loves Me This I Know Because the Bible Tells Me So." When the principal asked her not to distribute the pencils, she walked through the school building saying, "Satan is in the building."

And what were the kids who aren't Christian supposed to feel?  That they are followers of Satan should be the literal translation.  That is unacceptable.  I will always love Christmas displays.

I will always work to make sure that G-d doesn't become an issue in public schools.  I will always feel uncomfortable when I hear The Lords Prayer in a public place and it's not followed by prayers of other faiths.

Yes, damn it, I do feel grateful to the ACLU for making sure that Bill O'Reilly, John Gibson, Dobson, Frist and more are thwarted in their attempts to make people believe that America isn't a legally Christian country.

To all of who you, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Festivus celebrants, who believe that I'm wrong in being grateful to the founding fathers for their foresight, and for the First Amendment; to forget history and to just live in the moment when it comes to this subject is akin to walking around with blinders on. 

Don't ask me for your help later on.  Now is when we must stand together.  Enjoy the Christmas lights; enjoy the menorah.  But realize that what you might think is an absurd stance by Fox News is growing.  If you can live with a growing anti-Semitic movement, don't take the ACLU for granted now.  You just might need them later. 

Enjoy the holidays.  Just remember that not everybody thinks like you do.  And that is what has made America such a great country; the infusion of minds from different cultures coming together to form a polyglot of ideas and communities.

America: Seduced By War

Dr. Andrew Bacevich is a graduate of West Point and a Vietnam veteran. He’s currently a Professor of International Relations at Boston University.

His newest book is titled “The New American Militarism: How Americans are Seduced by War.”

Bacevich describes himself as conservative, and he says Americans have become seduced by a “military metaphysic.” All international problems are seen as military problems, and inevitably a military solution is always sought. It’s a variation on that old saying: if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

According to Bacevich, up through the end of World War II, America’s military needs were always gauged by the current situation. At the end of all of our major wars – including the Civil War, World War I and World War II – the extra troops raised for that war were disbanded when they were no longer needed.

Since the end of the Cold War, America has valued military power for its own sake. It’s now standard policy to maintain military capacity far beyond that of any adversary or any possible combination of adversaries. The defense budget is now 12% larger (adjusted for inflation) than the average defense budget during the Cold War era.

“By some calculations” (sorry, the author doesn’t get more specific than that) the United States now spends more on defense than every other country in the world put together. There’s no historical precedent for anything like this.

There are American bases and forces in dozens of countries. A lot of these countries are perfectly capable of providing their own defense. In every corner of the world, U.S. forces are training, planning, exercising. This has been standard for so long now that practically nobody – liberal or conservative – gives it a second thought.  It’s gradually become the norm, sort of like a huge glaring billboard that you’ve gotten used to and now you don’t even notice it any more.

Bacevich says “Whether any correlation exists between this vast panoply of forward-deployed forces on the one hand and antipathy to the United States abroad on the other has remained for the most part a taboo subject.”

I first heard of Andrew Bacevich through this article written by Pastor Anthony Robinson.

At some point in our recent history, “religious” leaders began promoting a “Crusade theory of warfare.” This has replaced the earlier doctrine of “Just War.” Under the mindset of the Crusade theory, supposedly “preventive” wars – like the Iraqi invasion – are justified.

This is a carryover from the Cold War. Some conservative religious leaders framed the Cold War as a worldwide struggle between Christianity and godless communism. In order to maintain our Crusade mindset, Islam has now been substituted for communism. Franklin Graham (Billy’s offspring) has denounced Islam as “a very evil and wicked religion.”

Other “Christian” leaders just lash out blindly at anyone and everyone who doesn’t meet their approval. Southern Baptist President Jack Graham has said, “Satan is the ultimate terrorist” and “this is a war between Christians and the forces of evil, by whatever name they choose to use.”

Yup, there’s evil everywhere, and it’s our job to stamp it out.

Ironically, during the third century some Christians splintered off into their own branch (called Manichaeism). This school of “Christianity” divided the world into good and evil, and thought it was the duty of all “good” people to stamp out evil. Manichaeism was branded by the Church as heresy from the time it first reared its head. It blinded people to their own capacity for evil, and it made self-delusion too easy.

As we can see, the Manichaeism school of “Christianity” has been alive and well in America for the past few decades.

Under our traditional doctrine of a Just War, war is considered the last option. In order to be “just,” a war has to meet the following requirements: “just cause” (i.e. self-defense); public declaration of war by a lawful authority; and no ulterior motives (vengeance, personal gain, etc.).

Which of these criteria does the Iraqi war meet?

“Christian” leaders who are pushing this modern-day Crusade have betrayed their faith. Andrew Bacevich – a Christian and a soldier – believes Christianity should serve as a check against the excesses of war and an over-reliance on the military. Christians should not be cheerleading for war.

cross-posted at Who Hijacked Our Country

Don't blame the ACLU or me we didn't close the megachurches

Yes I know; you're sick of this subject.  Me too.  But here I go...

I'm a New York Jew; a life long Democrat and a card carrying member of the ACLU.  Much of the time I'm very disappointed in the Democratic party, but at this moment it's better than the alternative.  I don't believe in all of the ACLU's causes, but I believe that everybody has a right to be represented.

But when I read blogs that blame the ACLU and/or minority groups for taking Christ out of Christmas, I have to say that as a Jew I, and most Jews, want you to celebrate Christmas.   On Christmas Jews traditionally went to the movies and ate Chinese food.  We think it would be good if you spent time in church or with your family; as we liked it when the theaters weren't packed.

In the 80's my friends practicing Catholics wanted to go to the Limelight on Christmas Eve after Midnight Mass.  I was beyond shocked. The Limelight was (is?) a disco in a former Catholic Church.  It sounded blasphemous to me.  It felt like eating pork on Yom Kippur.  We went; and I did have a life changing experience.

I don't think I believe in G-d but I respect people of any religion who truly believe.  If I were to feel that I was in any way denying you the ability to pray, I would feel that I have failed as both a person and a person who does worship The First Amendment.  I don't care about the manger in the courthouse.  But understand something else.  I care greatly that church and state stay separate.

Before the news of the mega churches closing I wrote a post in my personal blog about the Christmas/holiday season mess.  One of the comments was from a Jewish blogger, Neil, who is usually very witty and tres lite.  He really struck a chord; couldn't stop thinking about his comment and asked for permission to quote him.

Frankly, I think one of the things that makes our country so great is that the majority religion has tried so hard to make minorities feel comfortable. Where else have Jews and others been made to feel as equals and as comfortable with Christian holidays? Certainly not in many European countries where you are considered Jewish first, then a citizen of that country.

New York is not the rest of the country. I think it would be nice to bring back some of the religiosity to Christmas in big cities, so it isn’t such a consumerized holiday. Thank you, Christians, for being so good to the rest of us. You can now celebrate Christmas a little more openly.

However, things are different in smaller cities and towns around the country. Those places have a habit of mixing up religion and public policy. It is places like those where I don’t think it appropriate for the public sector to promote religion symbolism and ideology.

Here is where I want to delete most of what I wrote before Neil's comment.  It feels too silly.  As Jews we do feel grateful to the Christians in this country for allowing us to be full citizens.  We're grateful because our great grandparents weren't, usually, allowed to own land, have a profession or be citizens of their towns. They were allowed to be conscripted into the Czars army so they could wipe out Jewish villages. We're grateful that they left and came to this remarkable country. 

As a child I would ask my father why they didn't do anything about the camps.  "We didn't know."  After Viet Nam, I understood.  But Roosevelt, the people's hero, had evidence of the camps, and our country did nothing.  Nor did Roosevelt bomb the train tracks leading to them.

When boats of refuges came here, we turned them away, or didn't let them near here, knowing that we were dooming them to death.  After the war we took people who had been in concentration camps and put them in displaced persons camps.  We had strict quotas on the number of refuges let in here

Yet we were still grateful because we who were here, and those of us yet to be born were afforded the opportunity to be full citizens.  When we bought houses we remembered our ancestors who weren't allowed to.  It still amazes me and I'm basically third generation; but I heard so many stories and met so many people with numbers on their arms.  I have never taken being free for granted.  You accept us as we have never before been accepted in modern history. 

Separation of church and state is built into our Constitution.  If you understand the history of Jews in America, you will understand why we care so much about The First Amendment.  It's not just a symbol of our freedom, but a tool that is used to preserve every Americans right to keep church and state separate.  Here are two quotes by Fran Quigley, Executive Director, Indiana Civil Liberties Union

For example, the Alliance Defense Fund celebrates the season with an "It's OK to say Merry Christmas" campaign, implying that the ACLU has challenged such holiday greetings. (As part of the effort, you can get a pamphlet and two Christmas pins for $29.)
The website WorldNetDaily touts a book claiming "a thorough and virulent anti-Christmas campaign is being waged today by liberal activists and ACLU fanatics." The site's magazine has suggested there will be ACLU efforts to remove "In God We Trust" from U.S. currency, fire military chaplains, and expunge all references to God in America's founding documents. (Learn more for just $19.95 . . .

Of course, there is no "Merry Christmas" lawsuit, nor is there any ACLU litigation about U.S. currency, military chaplains, etc. But the facts are not important to these groups, because their real message is this: By protecting the freedom of Muslims, Jews, and other non-Christians through preventing government entanglement with religion, the ACLU is somehow infringing on the rights of those with majority religious beliefs

Many of us are fully assimilated; marry outside our religion; feel and look WASPier than the biggest WASP.  But there's always one moment when something happens that reminds us that other people view us as different.  I know that most people are rational; that most people don't believe this.  (Did a Google "ACLU" "Christmas" search and this was the number one document.

According to ACLU "Christmas haters" everyting refering to Christ inpublic has to go. But try as they might, they can't take the spirit out of Christmas, something this group is in dire need of. Boy talk about selfishness

Yes let's talk about being selfish; selfish is the same woman saying the following. 

The Constitution can be read front to back, sideways, upside down, and nowhere does it read there needs to be a separation of church and state. Good grief! The framers would have been very dense or dumber than a box of rocks, to put separation of church and state in the most "intentionally" misunderstood document, and then proceeded to have a nation built on God and in every aspect of their lives

Good grief, indeed.  If this is true then I have to not only be grateful to you, but bow down to your religious superiority, and that is where I draw the line. 

Just understand that we're not your problem.  You are.  If a person can find G-d in a concentration camp, any American can find G-d anywhere.  It's up to you to put Christ back in Christmas, not us. 

I could never celebrate Christmas as a secular holiday.  Why?  It is the symbolic observation of Christ's birthday no matter how you look at it.  But selfishly I want you to celebrate it so that I can see the trees, lights, decorations and even go to some Christmas parties.  That's right; Christmas parties at peoples homes.  Every other year my friends make an Italian feast in their Tudor house in Forest Hills Gardens, a picture perfect Ives & Currier Christmas community.  It's wonderful, but I will never have a Christmas dinner in my apartment.

Merry Christmas; Happy Hanukkah, Happy Kwanzaa, Happy Winter Solistice. I will call this season whatever you want me to call it as long as The First Amendment remains intact.  And I will always be grateful to the USA for allowing my family to live as full citizens for over a century.  Grateful but I will never feel less an American than you do.  And I thank G-d for organizations like the ACLU that make sure I will always be a full American.

Crossposted at www.courtingdestiny.com

Christmas For Sale

Today’s guest post comes from a blogger we were privileged to host about six months ago. His fine mind, practical perspective, and uncanny knack for getting to the heart of the matter without camouflaging fluff or rhetoric makes him a favorite of mine. Regardless of the importance faith plays in your personal life, faith plays an increasing role in American political life. It's good to remember that what's happening there is a sham, and a shame to many practicing Christians in this country.

I'm not feeling well tonight so instead of doing work I was resting and watching TV, and I decided to watch a little Bill O'Reilly.

During one part he was talking with a lawyer and a Pentecostal Minister about the "siege" upon Christmas. The lawyer talked about the ACLU and a case he had against them, that didn't catch my attention.

And the Minister really didn't catch my attention much either. He talked about preaching from his pulpit about supporting those businesses that say Merry Christmas in their ads and slogans. He didn't even say don't shop the other places, but just support those that do say Merry Christmas.

I wasn't sure what was making me unsettled, maybe it was Fox News, maybe I was looking for something.

But then Bill mentioned certain companies that underwrite his show, and I realized what it was.

We are turning Merry Christmas into nothing more than a slogan.

If you say the magic words "Merry Christmas" then I will shop at your store.

If you say "Merry Christmas" I will reward you with money.

It doesn't matter if you also say Happy Kwanza, Chanukah, Solstice, or Blessed Harry Potter Day, just say Merry Christmas and you will make me happy.

Falwell is doing something similar with his Friend or Foe campaign, talking about the Target Stores that apparently don't say Merry Christmas anymore.

It doesn't matter if you don't even believe in Christ, or act morally, or whatever. Just say Merry Christmas and I'll give you money this season..

It makes me sad that all we fight for are words. I wish I could hear more people fight for those that are homeless, those that work but don't have health care, for trying to save our money as opposed to driving ourselves further into debt.

But all I'm hearing about Christmas is, "Just Say IT!"

Christmas has become so mediocre by Black Friday and the sales we all try to get to, that now we make it even more pointless by turning into a marketing campaign.

I have this image of Jesus running into the temple and throwing out the money changers. I actually think that he would be more happy with no mention of Christmas in stores, at least that way they aren't selling it.

I'm not stupid, simply telling me "Merry Christmas" doesn't mean you believe in Christmas or that you actually mean it either.

In a strange way I believe those "people" that want us to stop saying Merry Christmas understand the power of that message more than those that are supposed to be preaching it.

Those "people" understand that Merry Christmas actually means something very important.

Now those "people" maybe afraid of Christmas and are trying to stop it in public discourse, but however I may disagree with those "people", I give them this, they fully understand that Merry Christmas actually means something powerful and important.

Those that are upset that Target isn't advertising Christmas, just turn Christmas into a thing to be bought.

And those are the people that don't understand the power and importance of Christmas.

The War On Sneezing

Where is it? I mean all this talk of the War On Christmas and saying Happy Holidays as opposed to Merry Christmas got me thinking about who actually says "God bless you" after someone sneezes.

So with the cold season upon us I started listening  to what people would say after someone sneezed and to my astonishment I found people saying "bless you" instead of "God bless you" and I was immediately appalled that some how, some way, the liberals have quietly removed "God" from "God bless you". I actually heard one of these Nazi liberals say "Gesundheit!"

What nerve they have thinking they could take away such a cornerstone of the Christian faith. Don't they know that by not saying "God bless you" after someone sneezes could cause the recipient of the blessing to catch the plague or even worse, they might turn gay.

I say we take a stand today and force these liberal and atheist morons to acknowledge God when someone sneezes. With the next pandemic coming down the pipeline I say we launch a nationwide campaign to put God back into sneezing. If we don't act now who knows what could be next. They just might try taking "God" out of "God Damn it!"

Objective Religious Study

Ninety-nine percent of all religions are wrong. How do I know? I know, because all religions contradict each other. And, most religions believe that they are the one true religion. If these religions contradict each and they claim to be the one true religion then only one of them can be right and the rest must be wrong.

However, if a religion is wrong is that bad? Most people would agree that it depends on what the religion is wrong about. If the main issue is whether the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Jesus or a symbol of community one could argue that there is little serious difference between the beliefs and it doesn’t really matter who is wrong and who is right on this issue. Since the entire concept of Christianity pertains to community it makes little sense to even argue about this issue at all and instead concentrate on bringing the Christian community together.

But, who’s to say that any Christian sect is the one true religion, if one exists at all? After all, Paul and Jesus didn’t even agree on several points. In fact, the Bible contradicts itself in many ways and in many places. Add to those 2000 years of theologians creating ways to reconcile different ideas in the Bible. Then stepping back and looking at the Bible we find that it contradicts the observations of the real world. The Earth is round and orbits the sun, which aren’t even the center of the galaxy let alone the center of the universe. There is no water above the firmament. In fact there isn’t any firmament; gravity holds the atmosphere to the earth and is not contained by any material.

At this point we should consider what Religion is anyway. Religion is man’s natural response to the supernatural. Supernatural in this context is anything that is beyond the natural world. Since the supernatural is beyond the natural world science can not measure is by definition. Science is the observation of natural world. Religion is how man responds to the supernatural. And, since religion involves response to something that isn’t part of our natural world it gives us a handle on the supernatural.

For a moment let us assume that the supernatural exists outside the realm of our natural world and man can recognize and observe it through some unknown ways. All religions agree that man has some contact with the supernatural. If they believed that there was no possible contact in either direction there would be no point to the religion. So, for this argument we will not consider atheism.

Let us step back and look at religion as a scientific measurement device. Now, I hear some groaning and doubting going on out there. This is because all religions believe that they are the one and only true religion and they already know everything there is to know about man’s response to the supernatural. Take one moment to imagine that you might be wrong, because we already know that 99% of all religions are wrong about some aspect of their belief. The odds are pretty good that your religion is wrong about something. So, instead of concentrating on where other religions might be wrong we should look at religions in general and discover what things are similar, because similar responses to the supernatural are bound to be important responses.

So, what do religions in general tell us about man’s response to the Supernatural? Religions tell us that there is at least one supernatural being and respecting and honoring that being is a good thing. The majority of religions believe that this supernatural being created the universe and everything in it and this being cares about his creation. We should also consider the possibility of multiple supernatural beings, but these manifestations could be multiple aspects of one being. Abraham realized that one being manifesting multiple aspects was more powerful than multiple beings manifesting one aspect each. So religion concluded the belief in one God was more powerful than the belief in multiple gods.

But, religion tells us more than just the nature of the Supernatural. Religion tells us about behavior chiefly how we should behave. Since Religion is man’s response to the supernatural, man wants to know how he should behave. Through out human history there have been those who have devoted themselves to religious life. In general Religious life is concerned with fixation on the supernatural in an effort to learn what the humans should know about the supernatural. Over thousands of years man has learned quite a bit about the supernatural and what is expected of humans on this planet in this universe. He has divined that some behaviors are pleasing to the supernatural being while other behaviors displease the supernatural being.
Across the board the majority of religions agree that murder, stealing and lying displease the almighty. It is also fairly obvious that disrespecting any being would certainly displease that being, therefore disrespecting the supernatural being is bad behavior. It turns out that all these behaviors also help maintain order in society.

One aspect of religion is that it evolves over time. Primitive religions recognized the supernatural in the power of nature. Each aspect of power became a supernatural being. Lightening, Ocean, Volcano, Wind and Sun evolved into gods. Then these aspects merged into the concept of Mother Nature or a Super God or Titan. Abraham then merged all power into the aspect of one God and monotheism was born. But religion didn’t stagnate, instead it continued to evolve. Other religions also evolved as well. The evolution of religion was concerned with two main issues. First, how should man behave? And, how should man communicate with the supernatural.

Along the lines of behavior man recorded stories, allegories, myths, lessons and real history in order to have examples that describe what people should do in every possible situation. Hypothetical behavior is one thing, but there are always the particular where one needs to decide between two evil choices.

Along the lines of communication man studied prayer, meditation, ritual and contemplation. As the religious continued to study communication by using drugs, alcohol, sleep deprivation, pain, hunger and thirst. Hallucinatory images were revered as a form of communication with the supernatural. Over time these communications were compiled into the wisdom of each individual religion. But, since each religion believed itself to be the one true religion these ideas remained isolated and unpruned.

Unlike the free market place of ideas religions tended to keep its ideas in isolation. Because of this mistakes in understanding the intention of the supernatural being could not be corrected. In a free market of ideas the silly ones would be weeded out, as other religions that had better communications with the almighty on certain issues would prevail. In this way one super religion would evolve for all people on Earth with more of the best aspects of every religious idea in the free market place of ideas.

We can look at how Jesus helped religion evolve into a better form. In his three years of public life Jesus’ main message was: “Use love and understanding in addition to the Law to build a better community.” Jesus is saying that following the law pleases God, but when the law causes harm, use compassion instead. Break the “no work on the Sabbath” law when someone needs your help. Why should we do this? Because we are all sons and daughters of God our Father and therefore all of humanity is family. And, family takes care of each other. Jesus described taking care of the lowest in society because it is the right thing to do. Obviously this is a major step forward in the evolution of religion.

When someone does something amazing they earn respect. Sometimes when someone does something outstanding people repeat and exaggerate the feat. In the case of the amazing Jesus some people even called him God. Of course when Jesus called himself the Son of God some people claimed that he was proclaiming himself God, because a Son of a God must be a God, Right. But these same people ignore the fact that Jesus also called God "Our Father.” That makes us all sons and daughters of God and does not imply that each one of us are gods, right?

The one thing that I am sure about is that no one knows what the one true religion is. In fact, I believe that no religion has everything right. On the other hand, I also believe that every religion has something right so we shouldn’t throw the baby out with the bath water. The wise person realizes this and knows that there are many paths to God and the free market of ideas is where they are tested.

God has many aspects that humans experience in their response to the Supernatural. I believe that there is one God, but He reveals himself in many ways. Humans interpret this revelation in different ways and create for themselves a personal understanding of God for themselves.

If you see God as nature, as the Goddess, as a man on a cloud, as a spirit that moves deep inside yourself or as a relationship with Jesus you are seeing God in different ways that God has chosen to reveal himself.

Since man is human he can never know the full extent of God, therefore he must accept what he can understand.

Doubling Down...

What do you do when you nominate a more-than-under-qualified woman who happened to be your personal lawyer to the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land?

What do you do when the Chief of Staff for your ever-so-grumpy Vice President is indicted on obstruction of justice (any one remember that thingy; justice?), perjury before a federal grand jury and making false statements to FBI agents?

What do you do when the 2000^th American soldier dies in a war that you concocted with evidence from a convicted felon by the name of Ahmed Chalabi?

What do you do when your approval ratings dip below 40% (lower than Clinton’s numbers during his impeachment hearings might I add) and only 28% of Americans believe the country is headed in the right direction?

What do you do when your name is George W. Bush?

Why, go on a working vacation of course. There is nothing like a mountain biking excursion to get the old thinking juices flowing again. Nope, nothing like kicking back with the misses, reading a good book and drinking non-alcoholic beer while the country you are supposed to be leading is steadily going down the crapper.

That’s right, post the arguably worst week of his presidency, Bush stayed up at Camp David for a “working weekend”. Under the guise of hanging out with Harriet Miers cutting out cool little shapes of zoo animals and going over the list of potential-replacements for the potential-replacement of Sandra Day O’Conner, Bush hung out at Camp David in order to clear his weak little mind, which has become weak do to the constant struggle to either cater to the Dobsonites, or to the Cheney Capitalist Cronies, God; decisions, decisions.

So what does a failure do when failure has once again befallen him? He runs away, like any good little failure would do. Like father, like son.

...

So talk about coming out swinging; Monday morning Bush comes out and nominates Samuel “Scalito” Alito Jr. to the Supreme Court. A man who would want to potentially over turn Roe vs. Wade, a man who doesn’t mind 10 year old girls being strip searched, a man who allows for both race-based and disability-based discrimination. A man who does not think that the Family and Medical Leave Act is meaningful, a man who caters to the corporations, a man who does not reflect the views of the citizens of this great nation. A man would needless to say is, um, out of the mainstream.

Granted this is what is to be expected when you back a whimpering puppy in the corner, eventually he will look inside and find some courage to stand up for himself, only George W. Bush didn’t look inside and find courage inside of himself, he looked outward and sought courage from the Radical Republican Right. He went looking for a shield; he went looking for even more people to surround himself with dare he offend the demon dogs of doom, those revolutionary folk who crave the revelation of the day of reckoning.

What Bush has once again failed to realize (there goes that failure thing again) is that these people will not stand with you; they stand behind you, but only in the sense that they want you to absorb the brunt force of a pissed off American public. A mainstream American public.

...

So here we go, “Scalito” will be confirmed, as that is my ever so depressing pessimistic take. The Republicans control congress and control the outcome of this chapter in our American history, so I am sure you can see my concern for the outcome of this dire subplot, of this dire chapter.

Come on, George, get with the rest of us here, all we want you to do is to look after our security, control our budget so our great-great-great grand kids aren’t paying for it come 100 years, put the Religious Right back in their place where they belong, quit with the corporate welfare and start looking out for the welfare of the citizens who need it.

We don’t ask for much George, in fact if you need a lesson just ask that guy who led our country to so much success; I think his name is Clinton, for some advice, I am sure he’d help you out. After all he did a stellar job at balancing the budget, and he did a outstanding job of taking care of Americans. You don’t have to go at it alone George; we've got your back if you need it.

You just have to ask.

Tolerance Is Not Christian Anymore

I posted on Religious Fascism last week and I received the following quote as a comment. It made me angry. As I wrote I continued to think of more problems with the statement and examples of how it is wrong. My post was in response to a Religious organization promoting a new campaign called: “Truth, Not Tolerance.” The idea is that these guys believe that they have the “one true faith”, and they don’t need to tolerate anyone else’s faith because they are right and everyone else is wrong.

“I have no doubt that there are those that if given power would abuse it by using the government to force religious observance, but they are a small almost non-existant minority and their extremeism makes their rise to power unlikely.”

Well, I'm glad that you aren’t worried about your freedom. But that isn’t how I see it. I am certainly worried about my freedom. Through out human history groups have managed to take control of governments, even democracies. I don’t see the United States government to be any different than these others.

After the First World War Germany was a short lived democracy, but they weren’t able to stop the Nazi Party from taking control. They were just in a World War and they all knew that it couldn’t happen again. My landlord while I was in Germany fought in World War Two for the Germans and his father fought in both WWI and WWII. He explained to me how he and his father never thought it could happen again.

Another friend of mine escaped from Iran in 1979. His father worked for the government in the Department of Education. He told me how they never saw it coming. They thought that these students were just a bunch of loonies pushing their religion. But, they were wrong and the Fundamentalist Muslims took over Iran.

Examples abound! The Taliban took over Afghanistan even while we were there giving weapons to them. Even though I don’t know anyone involved in this I am sure that the common response would be: “We never saw it coming.” If the people knew it was coming, then why would they let it happen?

But, of course if you are wrong and these zealots do start imposing religious laws on the rest of us there isn’t any skin off your nose, because you are a member of the cult that is poised to take control and begin to make religious laws for the good of society. I don’t see your group as a bunch of loonies trying to push their religious laws like you do. No, I see two branches of the government being taken over by the radical right. These people are the seed of hatred and intolerance. Just because you were programmed to understand intolerance as a good thing, the people who are not being tolerated don’t see it that way.

The Bush administration is filled with Fundamentalist Christians that don’t see a problem with attacking a Muslim country in the name of God. Even though they don’t say it publicly I can imagine a group in the White House saying that the US presence in the Middle East will only hurry Jesus back so we can all go to Heaven. There is nothing that this president has said to ease my anxiety here.

The House of Representatives is even worse. There are quite a few far right loonies in there that really scares the Hell out of me. If Tom Delay is forced out a real religious nut is bound to take over the reigns. Fortunately Tom Delay only uses religion, he isn’t a true believer.

The Senate is actually the sanest place in Legislative Branch with people like John McCain who puts his foot down from time to time when the Zealots step over the line. But, I worry that his fortitude might not hold out. The torture he takes from the religious right may become worse than the torture he endured in Vietnam.

No, if we want America to remain a free country we need people to be vigilant when any group gets too much power, especially if they use the name of God to promote intolerance.

Crossposted @ Dr. Forbush Thinks

People in the blogoshpere: Q&A with Belinda

At Bring It On! we like to shake things up. We also believe that there are many people in the blogosphere who share our views. I had been toying with the idea of interviewing people as I love asking questions and understanding how and why people come to their ideas. Then I came across Belinda.

Some of you will think that I made Belinda up. I didn't. She commented on my blog; loved the comments and went to her blog to thank her. Then I read the sidebar. I had to interview her. Fortunately I didn't have to tie her to a stake or take her daughter or anything to get her to talk.

Belinda is a practicing Christian who lives in Arkansas.

That's all I'm qoing to say; to learn more about Belinda, the person, please read her blog. It's great.

Were you pro-Bush at the beginning of his first term? How did you get to where you are now?

Never was pro-Bush. (it's funny--part of me deep inside is crying, "How could you ever think such a thing?) Never could understand how anyone could be, given his record both in business and government.

Have you always been Christian or did you come to religion through a life experience?

By definition, one cannot "always" have been a Christian. I had a Jewish friend once say to me, "You know, I think I'm the only non-Christian in this group." Well, she was the only Jewish person in the group, and there were no Buddhists or Muslims or Hindus...but in that small group of women, probably only 30% were actually Christians. You could always have been a Gentile, but Christianity is a faith which specifically involves a conscious decision in your own heart and mind and a profession of faith...that's where you find divisions even among Christian denominations, like the Baptizing of infants and literal transubstantiation. Christianity is a faith (believing that Jesus Christ was the messiah, the son of God, your own personal savior through grace once you've accepted him as such--but please don't rely on my words for definitions of these things. Ask Billy Graham --he's non-partisan, brilliant, and in my opinion, truly ordained by God. And he has a website where you actually CAN ask questions! I have similar feelings about Rick Warren .), while "religion" has to do with denomination of choice.

Do people tell you that your religious views conflict with your political views? If so how. what do you say?

I've not had these things directed at me specifically, but have been involved in some debates on the subject. I've been screamed at because of my opposition to the war in Iraq. Before the 2004 election, I heard talk about how if Kerry were elected, it would bring on the "end times". This made me CRAZY. I think this goes along with what is behind the "Religious Right's" distrust of the U.N., etc. There is a real fear of "Zionism", Globalism, etc. because of their ties to the Biblically prophesied Apocalypse. Now--here are the two things that are STUPID about that kind of thinking. #1.) The current administration is pushing us TOWARD these prophetic events with things like globalizing control of the internet and proposing a National "I.D." system, and microchipping humans, etc. ("Mark of the Beast", anyone?). They're taking away our civil rights by the truckload, and trying their best to end diversity of every kind and homogenize all people into the same-thinking, non-trouble-making entity. #2.) I have a clue to give all the religious zealots who fear the "end-times" and think that they can prevent/delay them. In the first place, if you believe in the Biblical prophecy, and you are a true believer and have accepted Christ, you WON'T BE HERE for the apocalypse. You will have ascended already, OK? What happens after that to whoever's left ain't gonna be your problem. In the second place (again, if you are a believer--and all these people profess to be), God has already chosen the time of the Second Coming, and has said that "NO ONE shall know the day or hour." It will happen when it is (pre)ordained to happen, and you aren't going to prevent/delay the Apocalypse by voting Republican! What do you think--God will say, "You know, since the beginning of time and even before that, this has been the scheduled time for the end of the world....but gosh, Arkansas voted against gay marriage, so what the heck--I'll wait and see what happens. But so help me Me, the next time they elect a Democratic president in the U.S.A....." Please.

And please don't ask me any hard theological questions, because I don't have any but the simplest of answers. I am not a theologian, just a Christian, by choice and by faith. Because, above all, what God instilled in man was FREE WILL. The free will to decide whether or not to accept Him and in what form, or whether to reject him altogether. He could have made us all the same; He didn't. Doesn't that tell anyone anything? And our free will is what is being taken from us, little by little, day by day, by the very people who claim to be carrying out God's agenda. And for people like Pat Robertson and his ilk (ugh), a memo: Jesus' Great Commission for us went like this: ^"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." Dudes, you are REPELLING people in droves. Your current administration and its cronies are causing people who might have come into the Christian fold to recoil instead, because your actions do not match your words, and often, your words themselves are repulsive!

Oh, and just a sidenote on the whole evolution vs. intelligent design bruhaha: Most Christians I know believe that there is a way, not knowable by us, that evolution and Divine creation dovetail perfectly. I don't know who these people are who flatly reject the science of evolution, but stop it, already. God gave us the gift of science, and the intelligence to use it. So just stop it. Who knows what God's concept of "time" was in the beginning of the world? That first day could have been billions of years. We just don't know. And while we're on the subject, I've had just about enough of the flying spaghetti monster, too. Just because science can be accurate, does not mean that there is no God. I feel quite the opposite. So you guys just can it, too.

How do you define "conservative?" "Liberal?" Do you think any of that matters?

I think that both terms have become icons of hatred and fear now, we are THAT divided as a country. So much for the "uniter, not a divider" promises of GWB.

Do you see a difference between a fiscal Conservative and a foreign policy one?

Probably. I do know a lot of conservatives who are conflicted about this.

I don't believe in the death penalty simply because I think even DNA can be switched, and I think a life sentence without the possiblity of parole is a much harsher sentence. What are your thoughts on this?

Absolutely, 100% against capital punishment. This comes from my faith more than politics--I just don't believe we have the right to take a life in such a deliberate fashion. On the practical side, as you indicate: if even ONE person is wrongly executed, that should serve as an unassailable argument against the death penalty. I have a really hard time understanding how the same people who are pro-death penalty are anti-abortion. It's all killing, folks. And I do personally abhor the very concept of abortion. HATE it. Wish it would just go away forever. But to make it flat-out, no-excuses illegal in all circumstances? No. This is why I would be a terrible ruler...everything would have to be decided on a case-by-case basis (ask me how much I'm opposed to mandatory sentencing and "three strikes" laws), and it would all take forever, and the anarchists would gain control while I was dithering.

One point I'd like to make about capital punishment that just sticks in my craw (yes, I'm from Arkansas, and we say lots of things like that), is the often-spouted Biblical "support" for such a thing by conservatives crying, "An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth!" This has to be one of the MOST misrepresented Biblical references ever. Here is Matthew Chapter 5, Verses 38-42, NIV (this is Jesus talking) : ³⁸"You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'^{[g] 39}But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. ⁴⁰And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. ⁴¹If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. ⁴²Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you. "

Tom Delay? First sentence that comes into mind when you think about him?

Quotes like "I AM the Federal Government", and "I AM the Constitution." May he swiftly be indicted.

Bill Frist? Same thing?

May he follow quickly in the steps of Newt Gingrich and fade from public sight...while being indicted.

GW Bush?

Failure. Short-sighted. Controlled. Possibly well-meaning in the beginning, but taken over by the forces that propel and control him (Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld). Probably not evil. Probable "dry drunk." Stooge.

Karl Rove?

Bats, blood, all-consuming darkness, wailing, gnashing of teeth and rending of garments...I view the world as desired by Karl Rove as being something like that town in "Chitty-Chitty Bang-Bang", where there were no children, and everyone dressed in gray and never smiled. No moral or ethical constraints to keep him from his goals. I can't imagine him stopping at ANYTHING that got in his way. Read, or see the documentary, "Bush's Brain ". If you weren't frightened before...well, you will be.

Dick Cheney?

"Arrrrggggghh!" (That's what he looks to me like he's saying in almost every picture of him.) Consumed by greed. Anyone else would have cut ties to even the appearance of impropriety with things like Halliburton , but not Dick. How do you have as many health problems as he's had, still be alive, and NOT have a deal with the devil? That was a very un-Christian thing to say, and I'm sorry. In the Rankin-Bass Christmas special, "Santa Claus Is Coming To Town", Cheney would be the Burgermeister.

How did you feel that the government handled 9/11?

By almost immediately deflecting attention elsewhere, and repeating and repeating "9/11" and "Saddam Hussein" and "Iraq" in the same context, until people believed it. Then starting an unjustified war to keep the public's collective mind OFF Osama Bin Laden.

Katrina?

Is there evidence that the federal government handled Katrina? I wasn't aware of that. Being an Arabian horse breeder and fancier, I do know something about Mike Brown, or good ol' "Brownie". He ran the IAHA, all right...ran it right into the ground so that it NO LONGER EXISTS. That's right, we don't have an International Arabian Horse Association any more. Thanks, Brownie--you did a heckuva job! I think that Katrina and its aftermath were just, no pun intended, a "perfect storm" of imcompetence and mistakes on so many levels, that I'm not willing to lay blame at any one set of feet.

You live in Arkansas; what did you think of the Clintons?

Uh...LOVED them. Loved Bill, loved Hillary, loved when baby Chelsea was born (and Hil finally added the "Clinton" to her name). He gave us so much. I personally had the benefit of attending the Governor's School for the Gifted and Talented, thanks to Bill. He was young, vibrant, and everything we needed. And as a president...what I wouldn't give to have him back. He gave us the huge budget surplus, W. has given us the largest deficit in history, and it's growing every day. Clinton did so much for our nation in the global community...all that hard work destroyed now. But let me tell you--I really believe that the Clinton-hating is nowhere in the world as intense as it is right here in his home state. It's bizarre. And yes, he was an idiot about sex, obviously. Every man has flaws, and his were squarely centered in his pants. But I'll take that over what we have now any day. You know, when I think of the whole attempt to impeach Clinton over ORAL SEX...I can't help think about King David. One of the Bible's biggest screwups. Sinned, and sinned, and sinned again...yet he was "God's favorite." Why? Because he truly repented, and in his heart truly desired to honor the Lord. God knew his heart, and loved him for it.

Whitewater?

How do you spell the sound of me blowing a huge raspberry into my hand and making a huge fart noise?

The 2000 election?

*sigh* I remember disbelief, hope, more disbelief, grief, flat-out denial that this could possibly be happening...and a total outrage at the deceit that is the "electoral college", especially now that the Republicans (thanks, Tom DeLay!) have gotten the districts arranged just so. And now that the "machine" has learned how best to exploit and manipulate those districts ( i.e. getting anti-"gay marriage" initiatives on the ballot in every single swing state in 2004--thanks, Karl Rove!, "push" polling, and downright scare tactics against minority voters)...well, I'm not extremely optimistic for the future. It seems unlikely that American voters could be so stupid a third time...and yet, I thought that the second time, too.

Thanks for the chance to vent somewhere other than my own site, where I might infuriate family members! And please remember, these opinions are NO ONE's but my own, so if you disagree, that's great, but don't yell at me about it, because we're all entitled, OK? If I have a fact wrong--a FACT, not an opinion--let me know, but gently. I both cry and bruise easily. If you are an atheist or a "pastafarian" who wants to ridicule me for my faith in God, don't bother, 'K? And after all this navel-gazing, I can assure you that my own blog will be full of nothing of substance for at least a week now.

Can I be truthful? Bill Clinton is my hero. Belinda helped me understand how true Christians can repent and forgive. I thank her for that and for everything else she taught me.

A Constitutional Hurricane

O.K. kids, here's a dilemma I would love to solve.

We all know in the United States it is against the law to deny employment to anyone based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin; this is a right that is entitled to us under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

O.K., we all agree so far, right? Good.

However, the Civil Rights Act does not cover discrimination and harassment based on sexual orientation, status as a parent, marital status and political affiliation. However, other federal agencies and many states and municipalities do.

Still with me? Good.

It was reported this past week that in the coming months the Vatican will ban all gay men from joining the clergy even if they take a vow of celibacy.

See where I'm going with this? No? Let me explain.

Damn, now I have reached a quagmire of my own! I was going to argue that the Catholic Church has a constitutional fight on its hands if the Vatican is going to bar gays from serving as priests since the Church, as an employer, hands out paychecks to its "employees." But then I realized the Church does not employ women as priests, so I started doing research to find out how the Church has been able to skirt around the Civil Rights Act and, to my amazement, I could not find anything that even remotely talked about this subject.

So I was forced to call a friend of mine who knows the workings of the Church and he told me that the Church gets around the Civil Rights Act because priests are all paid by donations.

What an interesting concept. I put my money in the basket and that money eventually ends up in the pocket of my priest as down payment for a Mercedes. Life couldn't be better!

But then I started thinking that the Church earns money in many ways. It is the largest real estate owner in the United States—that's not a donation. It runs bake sales—that's not a donation. The Church runs Catholic schools where tuition is paid—that's not a donation. So how is it that my priest can drive around in a Mercedes solely on the donations to the Church? Wow, this is getting really convoluted. How am I to know what part of my priest’s salary is generated by donations and what part is money generated by the Catholic Church itself? You see, the Church could not survive on donations alone, so they employ and pay people with money generated by their peddling of faith to the masses.

So with that in mind, I have to raise the question: how is it that the Catholic Church, or any church for that matter, is excluded from recognizing the U.S. Constitution guaranteeing every American the right to equal opportunity employment?

In addition, the U.S. Constitution also recognizes freedom of religion just as long as that religion does not include sacrifices and things like that. I'm confused. Does this mean that the U.S. Constitution supports an organization suppressing human rights?

I think we need just one brave soul to bring this argument in front of the Supreme Court because the way I see it, the Catholic Church employs thousands of people and is enabled by our Constitution to discriminate between who can and cannot manage someone’s soul based solely on sex or sexual preference. Oh, one other thing, why the fuck would the Church care if a man is gay if he is taking an oath of celibacy? It's not like there have been any studies that have linked sodomy to pedophilia, right?

Fundamental Fear and Rage

This piece was written on Friday; maybe it was written a few days before its time. That was before the California legislature passed a new law that would allow homosexual marriages. Of course there is one obstacle that could prevent this from becoming law – Arnold "the Governator" Schwarzenegger. When he ran for election, he told the voters that he was a fiscal conservative. He down played any support for the social reforms of the radical right. This is the only way that a Republican can get elected in California. But, the fear of the Religious Right can put political pressure on the man who said that he would not bow down to special interests.

So, Arnold has three options.

1) He can bow down to the "special interest" of the Religious Right and veto the legislation.
2) He can be a man and stand up for civil rights and sign the bill