Christian Restorationists

Doctrine on Peace:

http://www.catholicpeacefellowship.org/nextpage.asp?m=1000

http://www.comunione-liberazione.org/articoli/eng/1/nowar.html

http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/007891.html

------------------------------------------------

Who is Bush?

http://www.counterpunch.org/madsen04222003.html

------------------------------------------------

People of all persuasions are welcomed and encouraged to sign:

http://www.petitiononline.com/B6U6S6H/petition.html

To: His Holiness, Benedict XVI, Pope and Bishop of Rome

Your Holiness:

Please be assured of our prayers on your behalf as you take on the responsibilities of the Petrine Office.

Jesus of Nazareth calls all men and women, in all times, and especially in these challenging days, to take up their Cross and follow Him. [Matt. X: 38; XVI: 24; Mark VIII: 34; Luke XIX: 23; XIV: 27].

We witness today prominent men who flippantly call on the Holy Name [Ex. XX: 7] to bless and sanction their criminal acts and take unto themselves the title “Christian”. Yet, the Lord Himself warns that “not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.” [Matt. VII: 21.]

“Blessed are the peacemakers”, He assures us, “for they shall be called the children of God. [Matt. V: 9.]

Liars, on the other hand, are the children of Satan, because the devil is the father of lies. [John VIII: 44].

St. Paul admonishes us: “Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.” [Eph. V: 11].

We respectfully urge you to consider the state of the world today, in the light of Sacred Scripture and the Apostolic Tradition, in particular the prophesies of Daniel, Paul and John and to expose and repudiate George W. Bush as the “Man of Sin” [II Thess. II: 3], the “Beast” [Apocalypse XI: 7] and the very Antichrist [I John II: 18].

Sincerely,

The Undersigned

---------------------

“My father was one who, with unfailing clairvoyance, saw that a victory of Hitler’s would not be a victory for Germany but rather a victory of the Antichrist that would surely usher in apocalyptic times for all believers, and not only for them.” ~ Benedict XVI

“Christian” legal scholar Edwin Vieira needs to remember that the Bible is also entirely Foreign Law.  Not one word or even punctuation mark was written in the United States.  And all those who talk about “Activist Judges” being the problem, isn’t it the job of the judges to make impartial decisions, especially when those decisions are in favor of a minority.  When was the last time that the majority said that they were wrong not to grant equality to a minority, without the courts leading the way?  The independent judiciary is all that separates us from a totalitarian state.  Without its constitutional power to stop abuses from the executive or the legislative branches, the U.S. would plummet into Fascism.  I think that this is the true agenda of the “Christian Right”.

We are already in free-fall, A. Miller.  Fascism is already here in its infant form.  Go to <sojo.net> and read the article by Jim Wallis re: Social Security.  This is what REAL Christians believe.  Those that drape themselves in a self-righteous mantle and disregard the teachings of the Bible for the $ from the Corporation are bastardizing our faith.  Groups like Sojourners are endeavoring to take it back. 

But let it be clearly understood, if we do not succeed, Libertarian judges like Janice Rogers Brown will begin to dismantle the Constitution, all under the guise of being a “person of faith”.  It is all a disception that is being perpetrated on the American people, and they are gobbling it up.  We must stop this trend, or the United States as we know it will be gone within the next 5-10 years, at most.

At least the US does not have a church tax, as does much of Europe!

Funny, when you consider that the average person in the US is much more religious than the average European.

I see nothing wrong in acknowledging God. We in the US do it with our money (in God we trust). We are a country founded by believers. Part of the whole inalienable rights thing.

Why should/would we let a small minority throw out religion?

Scary stuff guys. Some of you guys seem determined to fetishize a man made document-the US Constitution-the way ancient Incas did with their founding myths.

Oh and by the way, do any of you so called christians know understand or care that many of your reverred founding fathers were either atheists, agnostics, or had a form of christianity that the Christian right in the uS today would not recognise. I just cannot understand how the wealthiest country in the world could have fallen to such a pitiable state, where people can argue straight faced that a story (the bible) open to imterpretation since the year dot, should or ever could be, the basic foundation of a democratic polity based on the reason of human beings. Truly, it is a recipe for the dead to rule the living. It is truly scary. Is it something in the water over there?

I am certainly not going to attempt to defend the Constitution Restoration Act of 2005, which at best is an unnecessary piece of intrusive tinkering, but I will point out that Joel Bleifuss, the author of the article, engaged in the sort of sloppy wordmithing that reinforces the notion of bias (in this case, to the verge of dishonesty) in the media. Mr. Bleifuss says the bill “prohibits the Supreme Court from ruling against any government official or government body whose actions acknowledge ‘God as the sovereign source of law, liberty or government.’ “ This suggests that Tom DeLay ( or Jesse Jackson, Jr.) needs merely to have himself Baptized to be forever immune from any judicial injunction or decision about any matter whatsoever; he states that it is the agent that is protected from judicial review.

What the bill says is that “the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review...any matter to the extent that relief is sought...against an officer or agent of Federal, State, or local government… concerning that entity’s, officer’s, or agent’s acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.” This wording clearly limits the constraint on the Court to a specific kind of action, and not to any action by a particular person.

I suppose the bill’s authors are attempting to make it OK for government officials to pray at public meetings, etc. Whether this is a good idea and whether this law accomplishes that goal are certainly debatable, and the danger of abuse of the above-quoted phrase is certainly real. But Mr. Bleiffuss’s wording strikes me as demagoguery, whether intentional or not, whose effect will be to evoke outrage where more measure reactions would be more constructive. It is at the least a carelessness of wording that, if Mr. Bleifuss were writing laws, might create the kind of confusion that the Constitution Restoration Act of 2005 (pompous title, that) seems likely to beget.

The US was not founded by religion. rather it was founded by pragmatic men of the enlightenment period. Men like Franklin and Jefferson and Madison, who were not Christians by any stretch of the imagination, rather they were deists who knew the benefit of being seen by the public in church. and every President after has taken that lesson.
some, like Bush, take it too literaly and do crazy things like beleive voices in their head are god’s and wage a war of the righteous…
or is it a war of the luxary. because we are, after all, americans and we’ll never have to change our fatty habits.

we’ve got to get rid of this two party status quo government. there will be no progress as they immitate each other and rid so close to the center in aims to steal away votes from the other side that no real progress can be made.
maybe one day it will be the Green’s vs the secularists?
a great day that would be.

I would be much in favor of a “church tax” on any and all religious organizations that lecture from the pulpit as to which candidate God wants to win, or otherwise use their resources to influence how people vote. If these modern day Elmer Gantrys want to tell their flock how to vote, they can damn well register as a political lobby and give up their tax exempt status. The constitution was designed to protect the minority in this country from the majority. And note to Paul, no judge or politician in this country has suggested that we “throw out religion”. But there are dozens of christian religions, many opposed to the policies of the current president, there are several strains of judaism, bhuddism, islam,
and many many others. There are three versions of the ten commandments. Are we going to “throw out” the religions of everyone who isn’t an evangelical fundamentalist and create a country like Franco’s Spain, or Khomeini’s Iran. Does God approve of tax cuts for the rich, privatizing social security, poisoning the planet, outsourcing jobs, creating debt for the next generation, cutting benefits for veterans, or any of the other things this president has done? Has the republican party gone completely insane, drunk with power, or both? The God that Jesus tells us about is not the same God that Bush, Cheney, Frist, Dobson, Robertson, Falwell, and DeLay pray to. Their God is Power.

““Christian” legal scholar Edwin Vieira needs to remember that the Bible is also entirely Foreign Law.  Not one word or even punctuation mark was written in the United States.”

Blahahahahahahaha!!  Miller, that’s perfect.

Jane Doe,

Is it something in the water over in Britain that so few of you have ever experienced a positive relationship with God?

People who come on this thread and badmouth Jim Wallis truly don’t have a clue what real Christianity is.  What these numbskulls in power call Christianity doesn’t even come close to the mark.

I agree that any church that preaches politics from the pulpit should be taxed.  If you know anything about Jesus Christ, he absolutely disavowed all political groups of his day--the Pharisees, Sadducees, Romans, Pagans… Whether you understand his message or not, he was the most prolific revolutionary in history.  He was a rebel who fought against those that vaunted “religion” and power rather than the attributes God desires.  Like humility, kindness, love and a desire to place service to others above self.

But, honestly, I am so sick of Libertarian Brits coming online like they have a clue.  Stick with their line of thought and we will (with the Republicans’ current efforts) soon have no Constitition, no wage or hour laws, no Food and Drug Admin., no EPA, no Social Security-- or didn’t they tell you that their plan of “peaceful anarchistic chaos” is their ultimate goal?  Yeah, that will work because, as we know, people really are unselfish, deeply altruistic and honest, right?

“To the corruptions of Christianity I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian in the only sense in which he wished any one to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others...”—Thomas Jefferson

“I consider the doctrines of Jesus as delivered by himself to contain the outlines of the sublimest system of morality that has ever been taught but I hold in the most profound detestation and execration the corruptions of it which have been invented...” —Thomas Jefferson

“Cursed be all that learning that is contrary to the cross of Christ.” —James Madison

“I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth--that God Governs the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? —Benjamin Franklin

“Bless my family, kindred, friends and country, be our God and guide this day and forever for His sake, who lay down in the grave and arose again for us, Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."-- George Washington

Just because people are fallable and don’t live like a saint their entire lives does not mean that they don’t have a binding, guiding and immortal faith.  Get my drift, Jane?

The church tax is NOT a tax on churches. Rather it is taxes paid by the people and then given to the churches. . .

It is surprising to me how Americans are studiously ignoring the danger that the religious right poses to democracy in this country. They are an amazing phenomenah to me, not in what they believe but the power they have managed to wield in this day and age.  With the Terri Shiavo case and the open assault on the supreme court (with significant republican leadership in the lead of this vicious pack) maybe they may have over-played their hand. Yesterday the Seattle Post Intelligencer featured a front page story headlined “Pastor holds the line on gay unions”.  This afro-american pastor claimed credit for forcing Microsoft to drop their support for legislation that would have prohibited descrimination on the basis of sexual preference by threatening to lead a national boycott agianst them.  During the interview the good Reverand (Reverand Ben Hutcherson to be exact) really laid it out for all to hear and exposed the fanaticism that underlies the right wing fundamentalist and the viscousness of their agenda. Too often the mainstream press does not quote these guys in their interviews when they really start to rant or let them slide away when a few more questions would give folks a real good idea who they really are and what they had in store for us if they ever came to power.  This time the reporter laid it all out as the reverend ranted on.

Joseph

Joseph,

I don’t know what article you were reading, but Jim Wallis was tearing the preachers you’re talking about a “new one”.  He is AGAINST what the Christian right is doing.  Hundreds of thousands of Christians are openly starting to join groups such as Wallis’ to fight against the intrusion of religion into politics.  Wallis and the people who are against the current administration’s view of religion WANT separation of church and state.  Re-read the article and take off your glasses of pre-conceived bias.

I dont know where you got that pre-concieved bias from.  I agree with Wallis very strongly. What I thought I was doing is sharing some information that is specific and recent on the front pages of a mainstream newspaper. Perhaps you were confused by my opening sentence and took it to mean that Wallis was one of those who are “studiously ingnoring”.  Had I thought that I would certainly have said it directily.

Joseph,

I did misunderstand you and I apologize.  I agree with what you said in the body of your statement, but the opener did throw me off.

The thing that Democrats (I’ve been a lifelong Democrat) have to understand is that we have to stop alienating the people of faith like Wallis, who want to stop this rightwing, neocon theocratic fascism.  I cringe everytime I read or hear (Air America, for example) going off on an aethiestic tangent, or ramrodding gay issues.  Instead of dwelling on issues that divide, better to pick strong arguments for moral values like not screwing the poor, not lying about the need for war, etc.  While those divisive issues must be dealt with, liberal Dems need to be inclusive.  Lots of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists don’t agree with incorporating church and state, demolishing our Constitution, etc.  But they will stay away from the table if the left side of liberal insists that everyone agree with their agenda.  We need to get every Dem to the polls, not chase them away.  I don’t mean this toward you, Joseph, it’s just that I am frustrated with Dems defeating themselves by choosing the most far-left position of so many issues.

Some of the disputes in this log remind me of the famous story of the rabbi who was called to resolve an argument between Samuel and Solomon.  After listening to Samuel, the rabbi agreed, “You’re right.” After Solomon said his piece, the rabbi agreed, “You’re right.” Then Samuel objected, “We can’t both be right.” The rabbi said, “You’re right.”

We’re all on the same side here, whether we are believers who emphasize God’s commandments to obey a humanistic ethic, or nonbelievers who feel that a humanistic ethic is self-evident.  The adversary is the belief that God wants us, on some occasions, to obey an ANTI-humanistic ethic, such as “kill a <blank> for Allah,” Or “let a <blank> starve for Jesus,” etc.

God will deal with the well-meaning nonbelievers mercifully, since they only became nonbelievers because of revulsion at what they were taught as being the Word of God.  The believers in a God who is not merciful to others will probably find that their God is not quite as merciful to them as they had hoped.

I agree with you, JAR.  The following is a general statement and not intended toward you.

Jesus was brought a woman caught in the very act of adultery.  Of course her accusers were Pharisees out to entrap Jesus by his reaction.  When they presented her (Notice they didn’t present the man involved), Jesus told them to let the one among them that was without sin cast the first stone.  No one moved, and then Jesus looked them in the face.  He bent down and wrote at their feet.  When each religious leader saw what he had written (most scholars believe he wrote THEIR sins in the dust), they freaked out and ran away.  At last left alone, he turned to the woman.  He said, woman, where are your accusers?  She said, I know not, Lord.  He then told her that they couldn’t condemn her and he wasn’t about to do it either.  Just go, and change your ways.

It is never up to a Christian to judge another, something this rightwing Christian movement does constantly.  God will decide who has rejected his gift and who has accepted.  That being said, we MUST include everyone, Christian, Muslim, gay, straight, etc. into Democratic party if we are ever to get rid of the vermin that inhabit the government now.  So quit worrying about religion and putting down those who have faith.  You’re insecurity in the matter only lenghtens the time of oppressive Republican rule.

Speaking as one who has expressed severe criticism for codifying religious teachings into law (including my pet hates, the sectarian bullying of “defense of marriage” laws and all efforts to get such oppression constitutionalized), I wonder if I speak for anyone else when I say that it’s not religion per se that so provokes me, it’s the pushiness and intractability of so many of the faithful. Not to overgeneralize, in fact Jim Wallis is one I would obviously exclude from that criticism, but DAMN there are so many rank-and-file faithful for whom there simply is no question; the admirable certainty with which they cling to their faith in God somehow makes them believe that their social and legal programs are equally beyond question. Their religious leader says it, they believe it, and that’s the end of it. If that was as far as it went, I wouldn’t care. I’d take up arms to make sure you could live by the Bible’s teachings if you so chose. But once they get enough numbers to make their religious views into the law they have and will, as has happened so many times in history, immediately become yet another oppressive force.

If there’s still such a thing as religious freedom in America, it has to mean that you’re free to worship, or free not to, and there’s no legal repercussion. And that can’t be had if cops, courts, and office-holders are guided in their policies by reference to an unquestionable religious doctrine (in fact, for the doctrine to even be questionable at all, it must not become law).

Few liberals really want to try the Soviet trick of making religion a museum relic, certainly I do not; it’s role in helping us out of savagery (to the extent that we’re really beyond it) is a matter of record as much as are religious crimes and abuses. More so, actually.

But when religious status is being pushed to equate with political credibility, or gives one special breaks before the law, or is the sword-point of the attack upon an independent judiciary, I begin to wonder what happened to the country I grew up in. Hell, even then, America had an array of racial, economic, and gender-linked injustices, but now there’s this dancing around with quasi-theocratic nonsense.

Do we believe so much in the City On The Hill allegory for America? Are we so convinced of our immunity from the forces of majoritarian oppression, such that no matter how much we mix the bludgeon of law with sectarian provisions, we still believe we’ll remain a free and open society? How long must this endless harping upon one’s religious beliefs take center stage, such that we risk actually dismantling all of the legal safeguards against the forming of a National Religion, with all the misery and immorality that will follow, if history is any guide?

And by the way, any American Christian who claims to be oppressed has got to be delusional. We might make fun of them a little and live in ways they disagree with, but no one’s truly oppressing them, not with law, custom, or violence. Far from it. May God grant that THEY do not become oppressors in their own right.

Yeah, that is a real prayer.

“The independent judiciary is all that separates us from a totalitarian state.”—Absolutely incorrect. If we enter into a totalitarian state, it is the judiciary that will take us there; it is, after all, the least democratic and least accountable branch of government. It is the beliefs and values of the citizens that keep us from totalitarianism, not the judiciary. If the judiciary loses its credibility, the trust of the community, its independence will be irrelevant.

“ Without its constitutional power to stop abuses from the executive or the legislative branches, the U.S. would plummet into Fascism.  I think that this is the true agenda of the ‘Christian Right’.”—And I think self-aggrandizement and imposing their secularist beliefs and values on everyone is the true agenda of the “Secular Left.” We can bandy about all kinds of interpretation of “the true agenda” of those we disagree with, but doing so only serves to reinforce our prejudices. Guessing about and reacting to “the true agenda” does not advance the discussion; it preaches to the choir.

“But let it be clearly understood, if we do not succeed, Libertarian judges like Janice Rogers Brown will begin to dismantle the Constitution, all under the guise of being a ‘person of faith’....We must stop this trend, or the United States as we know it will be gone within the next 5-10 years, at most.” --I would be willing to bet I could find the exact belief expressed about the Moral Majority circa 1975. Didn’t happen then; won’t happen now. This is not a country that is going to support the “Fascism” that Progressives are finding under every bed. Do we have prejudice, yes (what country doesn’t); will we see needless restrictions, yes; will there be some draconian laws, yes. But not Fascism. We are going through a period of adjustment, of a pendulum swinging back from the extreme believe that saying “under God” is a threat to religious freedom and the increasing disrespect and alienation experienced by people of faith over the past 30-40 years.

“ I wonder if I speak for anyone else when I say that it’s not religion per se that so provokes me, it’s the pushiness and intractability of so many of the faithful. Not to overgeneralize, ...but DAMN there are so many rank-and-file faithful for whom there simply is no question; the admirable certainty with which they cling to their faith in God somehow makes them believe that their social and legal programs are equally beyond question. “--And I bet you they would say the same, word-for-word, about the unfaithful: pushy, intractible, certain in their faith (in the rightness of humanism and the non-existence of God), convinced that their social and legal programs are beyond question. Read the tone in so many of the blogs above. Think about Howard Dean’s identification of the Democrats as “good” and the Republicans as “evil.” Re-read the speeches of Barbara Boxer, much of the writing in “The Nation,” anything by MoveOn.org. Both sides are digging in their heels these days and it started long before “the religious right” was an identifiable sub-group. Certainty, pushiness, intractibilty:  these were hallmarks of the New Left of the 60s. Intolerance for disagreement has been a presence on both the left and the right for decades.

Mitch,

Interesting points, but I respectfully disagree on the it won’t happen in the future because it hasn’t already happened.  When I was studying for my BA in German, living in Heidelberg, I was amazed at the firm belief during the Weimar Republic that no such thing as Nazi’s taking hold would EVER happen in Germany.  And, no, I am not equating Bush with Hitler. 

Believing that nothing like that could ever happen here is an open door for it to happen.  That brings my back to my talking point, the left is going to have to accept people of faith whether they chose to believe in a “god” or not.  People of faith are going to have to bend on some issues, whether they like it or not.  Republicans need to work with Democrats to fix our broken election process.  While most don’t want that change at the moment, when Dems are back in office, they will and we need to jump on that horse together.  That is my point.

Margaret states that as a Christian she never judges another, then in the next line she refers
to Bush & Co. as “vermin.” This bizarre behavior
seems thoroughly typical of so-called Christ Culters, whether in the rightwing of the GOP or the extreme rightwing of the Democratic Party
where religious fanatics like Margaret inhabit the
dark, intellectually unlit corners.
All the intelligent people in the world are atheists, there has never been intelligent reasons
arguing for the existence of a supernatural power.
In the end we all go back into the dirt of the earth, death is communism, none of the so-called
good deeds get you out of this life alive.
Democrats should repudiate religion and not ape
GOP as Kerry so pitifully did.
Why take your ethics, metaphysics and epistemology from a barebutted group of very
backward peoples who very briefly had two kingdoms
not totalling 200 years ?
This god business is absurd, you need to tax very
heavily your churches.
We had to deal with 5,000 years of reactionary
backwardness in China before Reds liberated us.
Thank you, Truman and Marshall.
Trouble with Mao is he not kill nearly enough
reactionary dogs.
Thank god which is dog spelled backwards that we
are now atheists in China.

Hey, it’s Libertarian boy masquerading as a Chinese national.  He was so frustrated on the “Fear, Loathing and the GOP” article that he had to pursue me.  How flattering or maybe, how scary that an individual would be so desparate to pellet me with ad hominem attacks and communist (sort of) philosophy, that he would search me out. 

But make no mistake, Libertarianism is the drooling bastard love child of Hitler and Stalin, Fascism dressed as the Leaderless People, backwoods militants, stockpiling canned food and mercenary magazines while they crumple the constitution and the Bible together, not understanding either and worshipping both as a self-designed paper deity with whatever personality they decide to project upon it.

So, dear reader, be aware that you are dealing with a total fraud when blogging with “Lin Bao”.

Margaret most confused. First I’m Communist and
then Libertarian, Chinese and then somebody else
presumably not Chinese.
Then references to Hitler and Stalin !
Yesterday Margaret was talking about nuking all
Chinese while calling me a racist for taking issue
with her anti-Arab racism which is anti-semitism
since Arabs are semites.
I have no idea she on any given board, did not realize that she trolls so many boards.
She can’t deal with my arguments so now she claims
that I don’t exist ! But I live better on 36th
floor of apartment in Shanghai than Margaret live
in her Chicago slum neighborhood.
I never compare bible with constitution, have
great respect for your constitution.

I am inclined to believe that this is not really Lin Piao but a cia analyst trying to keep busy now that they have been crushed by the neocons.

Joseph

Yeah!  And what’s really funny is that he takes his debating style right off the following link:

http://www.vandruff.com/art_converse.html

He is a “Conversational Terrorist”.  So amusing!

English not my first language though know much
better than Americans do mandarin.
But somebody please translate wordsalads by Joseph
and Margaret. Make no sense.

Margaret,

“I respectfully disagree on the it won’t happen in the future because it hasn’t already happened."--I’m not really saying it could never happen, just that it is not going to. The American character and history is really not at all like the German during the Weimar period.

“the left is going to have to accept people of faith whether they chose to believe in a “god” or not.  People of faith are going to have to bend on some issues, whether they like it or not.  Republicans need to work with Democrats to fix our broken election process.  While most don’t want that change at the moment, when Dems are back in office, they will and we need to jump on that horse together.  That is my point.” - I agree with all that.

And I laughed at the first Lin Biao post: it seemed like it must be a joke, someone’s stereotyped idea of what a Chinese Communist would say. Seems too angry to m; most likely American, as you seem to surmise.

How long must this endless harping upon one’s religious beliefs take center stage, such that we risk actually dismantling all of the legal safeguards against the forming of a National Religion, with all the misery and immorality that will follow, if history is any guide?

Posted by Kuya on May 4, 2005 at 1:53 AM

Having read multitudinous posts on the immiment danger of theocracy and/or a “National Church”, I have to say that I think this assertion shows a fundamental misunderstanding (hows that for a bad pun) of evangelical Christian groups in this country.

The basic fact is that these are about the most decentralized, non-heirarchical religious organizations there are.  For example, the Southern Baptist Convention is just that, an association of financially independent congregations.  They elect leaders and contribute money for common purposes like endowing missions and seminaries.  They have general agreement on religious doctrine, but there is no heirarchy - no pope, no bishops.  If the President of the SBC doesn’t like what a particular church is doing there is precious little he can do about it except express his opinion.  It is not like the Roman Catholic church where an individual priest can be removed from his position or an indivdual church closed because the higher ups have decided so.  Each individual congregation owns its own facilities and hires and fires the pastor as they see fit.  And the Southern Baptists are probably the MOST structured of the groups that you would term the Christian Right.

Anyway, where I am going with this is I don’t believe that there is any way that these groups, as non-structured as they are now, would ever come together to accept the sort of heirarchy that a national religion or a theocracy would require.  Roman Catholics maybe, but not these guys.  It is just not part of the culture of these groups.  The individual leaders would not accept being ordered and they would all soon fall apart over the modern theological equivalent discussions of “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.”

I would recommend reading “Born Fighting” by James Webb, which is a recent popular history of Scots Irish culture in the US.  Scots Irish attitudes towards religion underlie most of the evangelical movement in the US today and are based on the individual’s direct relationship with God as facilitated but not directed by a pastor or church. Emphasis is on independent self-directed congregations as a I mentioned above.  It is also a useful book for Democrats to understand cultural attitudes of the working class and the South and why they have been doing so poorly there lately.

Mitch,
Another liberal racist.
Fascism not limited to Germans, ideological
phenomenom, national socialism as much left
as right and deeply entrenched in US society.
Scapegoats differ but Hobbesian philosophy
the same.
Have to say that if China become capitalist war
more likely with USA, not less.

Very interesting discussion. I’m afraid I have to agree with the person who said the biggest mistake we can make is to assume that fascism could never here. I want to urge everyone to get a copy of the May issue of Harper’s magazine, now on newstands and to read Chris Hedges article: “Feeling the Hate with the National Religious Broadcasters”. In it he talks about a philosophy which some prominent evangelicals subscribe to called “dominionism” or “Christian Reconstructionism” which takes in a literal and mission-oriented way certain passages in the Bible, in particular the phrase in Genesis:
“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” to mean that Christian true believers thru the agency of the United States are destined to have this dominion over the entire world, democracy be damned, and that all others will suffer their tortured fate in the rapture, according to the book of Revelations, when Jesus returns to the Earth, but in the run up to that the dominionists will begin to create the Kingodom of God on Earth. During the run up there will be a series of powerful leaders, or regents, who will lead us to this Kingdom. The “Left Behind” series of books, by Tom Lehay, in which the blood of the agents of satan in Boston, Manhattan, and Hollywood, runs thick and fast thru a living tribulation is telling this story; titles in the series have sold 60 million copies. And in case you were wondering, many of these people believe that the first regent is a guy who happens to be known by the 23rd letter of the alphabet. No, I’m not suggesting that fascism is imminent; the Kingdom of God, its adherents realize, could require decades to create.  But what I am saying is that this thing could creep up on us. These people have steadily been gaining power for 25 years. There was a time when we could all have assumed without thinking twice that such deluded and ludicrous fantasies were safely consigned to the looney bin or a shunned and isolated lunatic fringe. Today people who probably hold these views such as Pat Robertson, James Dobson, and Tim Lehay have regular and continuing access to the highest levels of government in this country. Some of them have called for or implied that execution of homosexuals, adulterers, and heretics ought to be state policy. No, today we still have a Supreme Court and such pronouncements seem to be beyond the pale of public discourse. But what if these people continue to increase their power, to push the institutions of government in this direction. They are very politically savvy and are willing to do whatever or say whatever it would take to obtain the power needed to bring about their Kingdom of God. The greatest danger is that liberals, moderates, and true conservatives, in failing to understand what they are about, will assume that democracy - meaning protection of minority rights - could never fail. I am disgusted and sick to my stomach with this.

Lenny Bruce did a bit, the premise of which was that although the American Nazi Party had maybe 4 members, George Lincoln Rockwell, head of the party, was empowered by the paranoia of the liberal left, who simply had to have a boogie man to believe in. If I were to do a Marxist analysis of the phenomenon of all the attention and hand-wringing over the religious right put out by the political left, I would say that what keeps the religious right a political and cultural force is the need of organizations like MoveOn.org, and the Democratic Party, and the ACLU, and NOW to build up a paranoid fantasy about this boogie movement, in order to scare people and raise more money. The left has an economic interest in a powerful reigious right: it is good for business.

There are probably 4 Dominionists, the offspring of former American Nazis, no doubt. The Harper article says that millions on the religious right are Dominionists without even knowing it, because they hold similar beliefs. So I guess it would be fair to say that millions on the progressive left are communists and Arab terrorists, and don’t even know it, because THEY hold similar beliefs (about American foreign policy, about the Israelis and the Palestinians, about George Bush, etc.). The article is fear-mongering to make money.

Margaret,
I am neither libertarian nor am I English/British. I think libertarianism is a grossly distorted version of traditional 19th century liberalism, combined with a toxic version of right wing anarchism. Economic libertarianism gave us Milton Friedman, bringing the ‘free market’ to Chile, to the accompaniament of tortue and assassination ‘pour encourager les autres’. The result world wide, has been the greatest transfer upwards of wealth since the 1920’s. Social libertarianism is slightly different, but nevertheless suffers from the fact that the impact of social disorder of whatever kind always falls disporportionatly more on those who have the least in any society. As a result, the powerless and afraid are always prey to those who seek to restore/maintain social order by agitiating about matters which are peripheral to the real reasons social disorder arises. Such people, the powerless, are easy prey, for those who stalk the political landscape, searching for scapegoats onto whom the angry and disenfranchised, whether socially or economically, can be sooled, as we say where I come from.
The obsession with cultural issues that is so evident here is symptomatic of the thing that drives me and so many other people across the world, mad about the US. It is draining your polity of reason, it is doing nothing to repair the evident social crisis in your country, it is pandering to your supposed enemies on the right, and it is mistaking the shadow created by your enemies, for the real substance of what is amiss. I know it is probably annoying to have ‘foreigners’ talk this way, but anyway that is what I think, and again, I am neither libertarian, nor English. I am though a proud left liberal, who works hard where I work, and who wishes fervently that the US political class, or that bit of it that claims to be ‘liberal’ would just wake up, and leave the cultural postering to the ratbags of the US right.

Hello Mitch and Campesino,
Are there pushy, intractable lefties? There are. Are evangelicals organized into a monolithic political force? They are not.

However, those aren’t really the most important points regarding the religious neutrality of the law in general and the Constitution in particular.

What would happen if the evangelical agenda became enforceable by law? For me, this is the salient question. To rephrase, what would occur if the law was recast into the shape that politically active right-wing evangelicals seem to be working toward.  I offer some accessory questions and answers of my own:

Would my daughter or wife be able to terminate a pregnancy derived from rape? They would not. If I fell in love with a man and he agreed to start a family with me, could we marry? We could not. Could I rest assured that evidence-based, scientifically sound approaches to the study of the biological origin of humans would be taught in my kids’ school? I could not. Could I know that, if my brain was massively damaged but my heart and lungs kept operating because of automatic brain stem functions, I’d be let to die rather than have my family’s assets and emotional stability drained on behalf of a living corpse? I could not. Could I be certain that the addition of a discriminatory amendment to the Constitution is impossible. I could not.

To me, the evangelical agenda focuses upon restriction. It wants to make some things forbidden and punishable. And except for legal abortion, which doesn’t depend on a religious reference to be opposed, the other questions above get the answers they do because the crusader faction seems to believe that they have the right to restrict, forbid, and make decisions for unbelievers in the area of fundamental values and the decisions that follow from them. It means that one belief-group wants the ability to foist their views upon everyone, because they want to control the law, which would require conformity whether the rest of us accept those views or not.

To my right-wing evangelical countrymen (and I have no idea, Mitch or Campesino, whether you’re included in that category or not), I say to you, No. You should not have that power, no matter how great your numbers or how passionate your determination. Anything that can be done to block your attempts to enshrine your cultural ways into Constitutional law, should be done.

By contrast, if I had my way, no evangelical would have his ability to worship or live according to his own creed impaired one bit. I would take up arms to make sure you could worship and live by the values you hold dear, that’s what religious freedom means, it’s what is meant by the word “rights”. As long as you didn’t make the mistake of trying to force me to conform to those values, I’d let you be to work out your own life’s decisions according to whatever philosophy or creed is meaningful to you.

Clearly, there are large numbers of politically active evangelicals who do not share that generosity of spirit, otherwise there’d be no attempt to “restore” the Constitution. Actually, if it’s Constitutional restoration that’s wanted, repeal the USA Patriot Act, but that’s another tale still in the midst of being told. (What a horror-show, I can’t believe more aren’t infuriated by it...)

If there’s anything left of religious freedom in America, it’s only true to the degree that the law does not play favorites on a sectarian basis. No hostility toward religion, and no conformity to it either, it’s the only way to make sure that a pluralistic, free, and open society can still exist in the United States. If you think that’s important, that is. I do.

If the Constitution becomes the basis for the enforceable spread of one sect’s values, then evangelism really will have become a political monolith. A tyrannical one.

Jane Doe - Now we are bla ming MIlton Friedman for torture and assassination in Chile? Should we blame Marx for the intentional starvation of the Ukraine in 1933 by Stalin (which I would argue is the biggest upward transfer of wealth [since he confiscated their farm produce] since the 1920s and a more devastating one than free trade has wrought)? The analysis that blames philosophies rather than people for their actions is the problem. And it strikes me as odd that free trade is bringing about what the Left has long clamored for, without any recognition thereof: the transfer of wealth from the US to poorer countries (India, Malaysia, China, Taiwan, South Korea). Maybe this wealth is not falling entirely into the hands of the proletariat, but more of it is than with any other historically existent sytem.

Kuya-The salience of your question seems to me at least matched by the question of how likely it is that the religious “agenda” will become enforceable by law. If we make decisions based on our worst fears, rather than a realistic assessment of their likely reification, we are acting out of panic. I am not defending the establishment of religion: I am trying to suggest that the Left-wing’s anxiety about “theocracy” is exaggerated and a reflection of the Left’s general contempt for the religious right and anyone who disagrees with the premises of the Left-wing world view.

If I were of the religious right, here are some accessory questions I would suggest to you: Can your daughter walk down the street of most major American cities at night comfortably assured that she won’t be raped? No, she cannot. Can my son express his faith in a higher power, his humility before his God, out loud in school? No, he cannot. Can your school fire an incompetent teacher without fear of a lawsuit that will deprive dozens of students of much needed resources? No, it cannot. Those are restrictions just as significant as the ones you fear, and they exist now, not in some imagined future.

“Clearly, there are large numbers of politically active evangelicals who do not share that generosity of spirit...” - Now, be fair: there are large numbers of the politically active of all stripes that do not share that generosity of spirit. Generosity of spirit is not a function of political philosophy, and the tendency of the self-righteous Left to think it is that underlies the Left’s current powerlessness. Progressives, Liberals, and Democrats have been treating the right, the religious, and those who do not agree with them 100% on abortion with contempt, derision, and moralizing high-handedness for so long that what we might call the “cultural proletariat” has finally revolted. If we would all stop insisting that we have a lock and monopoly on the truth, that there is only one right way to look at any political or cultural issue, that those who disagree with us are not just misinformed or wrong, but out to oppress the country, maybe we could calm down enough to recognize the limitations and weaknesses or our own world views and what we might learn from others.

Hi Ho,

Brubin,have you read “It Can’t Happen Here” by Sinclair Lewis?I believe that’s the reference you were mentioning.

Of course,if one looks around,it’s apparent that it is happening here.I might also recommend that my fellow bloggers read Umberto Eco’s article on the fourteen points of fascism.The article was written in 1995,but it might be on the net.I’ll look for it and let you know where it is.Very enlightening.

The funny thing about this whole christian movement is how insincere it is.I mean,what more is it than a method of letting business dominate the lives of the populace under a false idea that their philosophy is the best.Ironically,the uber-richtig ridicule the left as offering"feel-good" solutions to everyday problems.What does the christian right offer?The very same thing.Be saved,trust us and all of your problems will disappear.if you become saved you’re one of god’s favorites,you’re better than the others who aren’t,and whats more you’ll automatically get into Heaven.If christianity is after-life insurance,then the christian right offers it with a warranty,however,no money-back guarantee.That money is now theirs.

The reactionary party,of course,loves this.Followers who will be compliant,deeming their policies to be God’s will and having backers that are not only rich,but can also play some heavily emotionally laden cards if anyone interferes or objects to their machinations."Christ-Hater!"is particularly effective as an insult.

When one compares the behavior of the christian right to the teachings of Jesus,one hopes that there is a God.Preferably the vengeful"go forth and smite"variety of The Old Testament.Hopefully,He’s just cleaning his cleats before He starts swinging.

re:Umberto Eco’s fourteen ways of looking at a blackshirt-www.modernworld.com

Crap!Typo!It’s www.modernword.com. The other site sells eyewear.

Well said Kuya!

Mitch,
I enjoy reading your posts.  Your logic is usually well-reasoned and sound, but sometimes your suppositions, as in the above post, are misleading.  The accessory questions you pose are not at all analogous to Kuya’s, which I think was your point.  Specifically, the fear of your wife/daughter being raped in a major city at night is, of course, a fear shared by all political parties.  The proposed remedies may differ, but the very question, as posed, implies that those on the left don’t consider this a substantive fear.  That’s simply untrue, not to mention more than a bit unfair.  Your second question is also misleading.  No reasonable person on the left is saying that your son can not or should not be able to express his belief in a higher power.  All we are saying is that it not be done in a place where it might offend or restrict someone else, such as a public school.  Or to put it another way, would you want my Islamic son preaching his faith at your son’s school?  Even if he started to be successful in converting others to Islam?  As to your last question, I agree, trying to fire an incompetent public school teacher is too difficult.  Unions are hardly flawless, but then so is the NRA and a host of other groups that typically side with the Right.  Is it better to eliminate the union and remove needed protections for competent teachers who run up against an unworthy administration, or does it make more sense to reform it to address your very real concerns?  I’d argue the latter.

The questions Kuya raised deal with directly restricting peoples choices, period.  As he well said, “As long as you didn’t make the mistake of trying to force me to conform to those values, I’d let you be to work out your own life’s decisions according to whatever philosophy or creed is meaningful to you.” They speak to a belief that being able to choose is a fundamental right.  But choices themselves are not fundamental rights, they’re simply choices.  They don’t have value to the exclusion of mine.  You don’t have to marry another man if I choose to, you don’t have to believe in evolution if I do, you don’t have to have the plug pulled after your brain stops functioning but your heart and lungs do not, even if I, in the next bed, do just that.

How is that fair that your choices are so much more valid then mine that mine should be eliminated?  Why should your be codified into law?

It’s a question of choice, not Truth.  In a pluralistic society, that is the truth.  It has to be or it isn’t a pluralistic society anymore.

Above comments sound like the philosophy of pragmatism or maybe the anti-philosophy of
pragmatism. The idea that there is no truth,
besides being epistemologically and metaphysically
absurd, is not a rational basis to live in a
society. Obviously not all views are cognitively
equal and it does not require that erroneous views
be repressed by law.
We over here think there is a large religious right in US, even if hyped by liberals to raise
money for bankrupt Democratic Party.
One third of US adults according to recent story
over here in the People’s Daily (Beijing)are
fundamentalist born again Christians.
This is dangerous and it will bring our nations
closer to war if it continues.
You are not going to be the sole superpower by
the end of this decade and it would be nice if
you Americans learned to curb your racist ignorance.

cal,

Yes, I knew my questions weren’t analagous in the sense you mean. They are perhaps parallel in that both sets of questions attempt to define concerns one side has with the consequences for society and the choices individuals have within it when the other side’s values, beliefs, and suppositions predominate that society, both legally and culturally. I didn’t mean to imply that I don’t think the Left considers the concerns reflected in my questions to be valid or that they aren’t concerns of the Left as well; I was just trying to suggest that concerns about the present may sometimes outweigh concerns about the future and that concrete concerns about security (personal or natural) might legitimately outweigh somewhat more abstract concerns for liberty and choice. Eliminating restrictions is probably not the primary function of the social order: anarchy reduces restrictions even more than a proper democracy, but that doesn’t make it more desirable. We all want some restrictions; the argument is over where to draw the line.

I think the drawing of lines is the pertinent issue on the question of expressing belief in one’s God in a public forum. Proselytizing is not what I had in mind; praying and giving thanks is. And I am not sure that “giving offense to others” is a sufficient measure of where to draw that line. A society that uses “giving offense” as an excuse to restrict behavior and choices (as this one is increasingly becoming) suggests to me the book-burning society of “Farenheit 451” and the totalitarianism of Soviet Russia, where expressing opinions that were not “for the social good” were illegal.

In your response to my teacher question, you seem to make some assumptions that are interesting. I wasn’t suggesting banning unions, nor was I suggesting that the inability to fire incompetent teachers was a Left/Right issue. (These days, in fact, it is hard to fire anyone, with or without a union; the paperwork needed in anticipation of a wrongful termination lawsuit is simply burdensome.) We all have this tendency these days to see particular questions within the context of “Does this issue make my side seem better or worse?”, (that is, in the context of the overall political contest) rather than as a particular issue in and of itself. I suspect one of the reasons people are so shrill these days is that they see every statement as a possible criticism of and weakness in their political philosophy (and all philiosophies have weaknesses) that they must defend against at all costs lest the philosophy fall apart, rather than as a specific problem to be solved. I am constantly amazed at the level of anger evident in so many of these postings and in the political pronouncements of pundits and politicians, of any stripe. That anger, that emotionalism, is to me the biggest danger we face.

Did someone mention Jim Wallis?

I haven’t read Jim Wallis’s book “God’s Politics”, but I have read several articles by and about him and listened to him being interviewed on NPR and elsewhere about his new book.  (who hasn’t?) I read the first chapter via the New York Times website.

I appreciate that he has scolded the secular left for trying to banish religion from the public square, an attempt I find neither constitutional or wise.  Anyone who doesn’t respect and admire the positive, primary and essential role religion played in the founding of America, and in the plight of people struggling to realize the equal rights “self-evident” therein (Or “sacred”, as originally proposed by Jefferson)*, is simply blind.  If left up to these “separationists”, this key foundational element would be removed from our public places and further white-washed from our public school books.  Its value would be totally lost on future generations.  (Not that the process hasn’t already begun.)

* http://tinyurl.com/5rb9j

However, I think he’s a bit of a hypocrite.  He’s eager to condemn any mixing of politics and religion by the right and even proclaim their religion to be “bad”, but he’s been every bit as politically active in trying to steer government foreign and domestic policy toward his left leaning world view using religion for justification as anyone on the religious right, and along with others of like mind has been quite successful at times.  His current tour reeks of politics, meeting with top Democrats and teaching them how to “talk about faith”.  Indeed, many have incorporated his speech within their own.  This is fine, they could sure use some help in this regard, but it’s the disingenuous “unbiased referee from the center” front that Wallis hides behind that is bothersome, not to mention the further disingenuousness he spawns among the Democrats, as they endeavor to fool voters into forgetting their previous disrespect toward those with strong religious faith.

From reading about Wallis, it seems he was out of step with most of the country and turned out to be wrong in opposing welfare reform.  Perhaps he had the best of intentions, but in my opinion, its a no-brainer that big government social programs are addictive and corrosive to self esteem, as well as being inefficient and unsustainable.  While many people certainly are in need of short and long term help, should and do get it, the primary focus needs to be on empowering people to take care of themselves.  This is best achieved through free governments and free markets, two concepts Wallis would do well to embrace more passionately if he really wants to help make a substantial enduring difference in the lives of people currently and hopefully temporarily living in poverty.

His history also suggests a distaste for seriously challenging or confronting oppressive ideologies whose least concerns are human rights, individual freedom, and high standards of living for their populations.  He actively opposed the effort to stop the spread of these ideologies in Central America, and—unbelievably—even in Afghanistan.  His reflexive opposition to any war is in my opinion a prescription for a much less hopeful and much less free world.

As a Republican, I’m hoping that Wallis and the rest of the religious left continues this less than tolerant campaign against fellow Christians.  It’s a recipe for their further losses at the polls, IMHO.  But as someone who’s immediate family has also bought into this fantasy about a conspiratorial theocracy taking over the country, I feel compelled to burst this unhealthy, hateful and destructive bubble.

http://tinyurl.com/ckpl2

http://tinyurl.com/c6zdv

Natalie,

Wow!  We agree!  I am reading Jim Wallis’ “God’s Politics”, and it is fantastic.  Just got it day before yesterday, but have already decided I am going to give it to my Baptist minister to read once I’m done.  Obviously, he voted for Bush and he knows we don’t agree on that, but he also doesn’t approve of the cuts in funding and other actions currently afoot that are diametrically opposed to the teachings of Christ in regard to the poor, widows, orphans, etc.

It is a very spiritually unhealthy bubble that the Theocratic Right are perpertrating on the American public right now.  I, too, hope people of faith will be contacted by their peers who are aware of this sham and be “enlightened”.  My husband and I are upfront with our Christian peers about our revulsion with the Bush Administration’s blind embrace of the “Rush/Falwell” mentality. 

His magazine, “Sojourner”, is just starting to leak into the mainstream Christian consciousness, but he is out there pushing it and revolting against the current theocratic trends underway.  Go to <sojo.net> for more articles written on Sojourners and Jim Wallis’ continued “crusade” against the 21st Century Crusaders.

p.s.

On the one point of dissent, I think it unfair to criticize his encouraging the spread of the Gospel in S. America.  If you truly believe in freedom, then it should be up to those people to hear the Word, and then to decide for themselves whether it rocks their world or not.  Though you’ve previously stated you’re not much on democracy, both our country and God are supposed to be matters of free choice, both sides having been presented.  Best to let people decide for themselves, which they can’t do if they’ve never heard it.

“On the one point of dissent, I think it unfair to criticize his encouraging the spread of the Gospel in S. America.”

I think you misunderstood Natalie.  I believe her criticism of Wallis was that he was against opposing the spread of Marxist governments in Central America

Perhaps I did misunderstand.  Natalie, could you give me some background data on the S. America thing?  I am award of the left-leaning tendencies of the past decade, in particular in S. America, but not of the incidents you are referencing.  Thanks.

“To my right-wing evangelical countrymen (and I have no idea, Mitch or Campesino, whether you’re included in that category or not), I say to you, No. You should not have that power, no matter how great your numbers or how passionate your determination. Anything that can be done to block your attempts to enshrine your cultural ways into Constitutional law, should be done.”

I’m not a right-wing evangelical. 

You really are saying here, boiling it right down, that conservative Christians should not have any political rights.

They have organized, raised money, and voted into office people who represent their point of view.  Isn’t that what we do in this country?  Isn’t that what you do every time you vote and participate in the political process?  How dare you believe that your cultural ways should be enshrined into law

Margaret is an absolute fascist who would stop at
nothing to keep people of an opposing viewpoint
out of power. She same mindset as Red Guards here
in China in 60s. No brains, no logic, no knowledge
of history, no principles, no philiosophy, racist
to the core as most Germans are, religious rightist Armaggedon fanatic, racist, superstitious, and has nothing intellectually
to contribute.
Campesino, she and her pathetic fellow liberals
are losers and their silly Democratic Party is
going right down the crapper. They are scared
to oppose American imperialism and the US aggression in Iraq but can follow the DNC rote
line on DeLay and other trivia.
Check out leftist Counterpunch website story:
Al Franken is a Big Fat Phony, 5/4.

Just for your information, both Campesino and Natalie are conservatives.  We may argue a bit, but generally have become smoother at sharing opposing viewpoints.  So, get your facts straight, faker.

I assumed they had a differing view from yours
after reading their posts but they do not sound
like fans of yours either.
Pathetic that you forced to call inaccurate name
instead of dealing with arguments.

No, pathetic is spelled L-i-n B-a-o.

You misspelled my name again !
Thanks for proving my point about you.

Oooooh!  A typo!  Wow, what conclusive proof, what obfuscation spewing forth from the mouth of a total fraud!  You are a laughingstock on this site.  Not one person has agreed with you, I just looked back over all your posts.  Not ONE! Ha, ha, ha.

Well, enough for today.  Have to go close a million dollar deal for MY BUSINESS.  Nice to be a wealthy, Christian Democrat American!

Truth has nothing to do with numbers.
If you read carefully you will see that I
have engaged in interchanges with a few people,
none of which I’d expect to agree with me since
I was shredding their faulty premises.
If you had ever read a book on logic, you would
see the fallacy of your appeal to authority (the
number of people who agree with you), your ad
hominem attacks on me (another logical fallacy
of attacking the messenger because you are unable
to argue with the message), argument from intimidation (claiming an argument has been refuted without actually refuting it)and the
fallacy of circular reasoning (reiteration of
your unproven assertions as a substitute for
dealing with objections to your claims).
Frankly, if Merlin or Matt or Gordon or you had
agreed with me I’d wonder what I was doing wrong.
Most of the other posters are focussed on other
concerns, which is not my problem.
Who cares about your business ? Except you.
Who cares about your vulgar flouting of your
wealth (even if true) ?
You are the Party of the People ????
You are another reactionary loudmouth whose
butt got successfully whipped in public.

Funny thing is, I don’t remember you ever making a cohesive point.  Funny thing is, you were the insulting one talking about me dwelling in a slum in Chicago.  Funny, your “Chinese” accent seems to have drifted off.  Funny, you big laughingstock.

Made nothing but cohesive points, reread my posts
and also reread yours and see who put forth arguments and who put forth ad hominems.
Chicago big tongue in cheek, over your head.
Sadly you reduced to more ad hominems.

Here’s a link to a provocative & challenging article from a Christian from Africa about “Justice Sunday”:

http://www.yesumulungi.com/Commentary/Comment3.htm
‘Justice Sunday’, An Abomination
By Kato Mivule
April 26 2005

---EXCERPT QUOTE---
These so-called Christians would never ever voice the needs of hundreds of street kids in the poor neighborhoods. These Christians don’t see justice for poor families in need of Medicare benefits, these rich filthy Christians of America pray in different churches, one of Whites and the other is for Blacks and other Minorities.

These ‘Justice Sunday’ Christians support GW Bush and his efforts to bombard Iraq and loot its oil so they can drive to their Multi-Million Dollar Churches in splash SUVs close to their Million Dollar homes. These are the Christians who are seeking ‘Justice Sunday’.

It is ironic that almost all those who spoke at this so-called Justice Sunday gathering, enjoy a 501 C 3 Tax-exempt status from Uncle Sum. The tax deduction totals in billions of dollars that 501 C 3 corporations get. However, even that is not satisfying to these dominionist Christians. They collect millions of dollars and don’t pay Uncle Sam any tax. Some of them still enjoy thousands of dollars in the infamous Bush Tax cuts and still siphon from the controversial Faith Based Initiative monies from their Chief, GW Bush.

The hypocrisy is just phenomenon. The meeting was a slap in the face of all Christians through out history who have laid down their lives and suffered unspeakable injustices, torture and death for Christ Jesus.

There is no excuse but a need to truly Repent as Christians in America. We have misrepresented Christ Jesus. This is not The Passion of The Christ. It is truly a time of repentance; those who engage in such dilemma as so-called ‘Justice Sunday’ are calling on Judgment to fall on American Christianity and all its dominionist evangelical movement.

The problem of morality in America has nothing to do with blood and flesh but has everything to do with Christians today. The changes we seek have to do with us. We have to change and bare the true fruits of repentance and not have Judges do that for us. We have left the true message of Repentance and Love that Jesus Christ Preached and we are running wild seeking help from supposedly “Christian” Supreme Court judges to help us legislate morality. This is nothing short of mere foolishness and stupidity.

The issues of the heart can never be solved in the courtroom. Jesus dealt with the Hearts of men and not their justices. As a matter of fact He did not get any Justice from any Judge in His time on earth…He was sentenced to be crucified on the cross…now that is Christianity that endures and perseveres in sufferings together with Jesus Christ; and not some gathering in some pompous ultra rich glittering high-tech multi million dollar, multipurpose buildings we love to call churches but are another Hollywood recording studio.

What is coming on such hypocritical American Christianity is nothing But JUDGMENT.

Christians in China, Sudan, Eritrea, Indonesia and other parts of the world have never requested Christian ‘Supreme Court Judges’ to rule in their favor. They have chosen to suffer for the name of Jesus Christ rather than get the eulogies and acclaims of men. Their Justice is ready to be executed on their behalf in Heaven.

American Christians have forgotten that suffering is part of Christianity. Throughout History, those who loved Jesus Christ and holiness suffered for it. It is a shame that instead of preaching the Gospel of Repentance, we have so-called Christian leaders organize abomination meetings and call them ‘Justice Sunday’.
---End of quote---

Beautiful, Chris.  That’s it in a nutshell.

The American Nazi party was always a pariah. They never had access to the halls of the power. Roy Moore (the ten commandents judge from Alabama) who (or whose lawyer) has helped draw up the Constitution Restoration Act has advocated the death penalty for homosexuals. There could be ways of using this Act to bring that about. I’m afraid that too many people are living in the dark. As an earlier poster pointed out many free thinking people in the Weimar Republic simply didn’t believe that fascism was possible. There were many people in this country and across Europe who thought that Hitler was some sort of benovelent nationalist who should be allowed to express the resentments of the German working and middle class so that they could be dissipated in a peacable way. I’m appaled by the suggestion that we should gut the First Ammendemnt so that evangelicals can express their resentment of liberal culture. This Constitution Restoration Act is a large step in the direction of enshrining Christian Theocracy into law and voiding the First Amendment and its protections. Fascism, however, will probably not arrive until there is a single (or perhaps a series) of catalytic events which cement the deal between the demagogues and the legions of Christian soldiers who know only their faith and do not understand the Bill of Rights. I’m speaking here of spectacular crises like 9/11 - a similar terrorist attack, perhaps even involving nuclear weapons, wars in Korea or the Middle East, a serious or prolonged economic crisis perhaps involving shortages of oil, etc. In such circumstances, these people will prefer the protection of a strong leader to any concern whatsoever for Democratic principles. The scapegoating of those in this country who are or believe differently will arouse their passions and be convenient for thier leaders. Witness what happaned just after 9/11 when Falwell and Robertson blamed gays and the counterculture. Yes they apologized later, but imagine what could happen when we no longer have an independent judiciary and there is a crisis which seems to be ten times worse. Lets not forgot all the antiMuslim violence which also happened then. Yes, these were mostly the acts of isolated nuts. But the potential is there for more systemic repression, and what is going on now is a very bad sign. If God is so powerful and so good then why does he need so much help from politicians?

“Witness what happened just after 9/11 when Falwell and Robertson blamed gays and the counterculture. “ - What exactly did happen? Was there a huge upsurge in gay-bashing and attacks on hippies? Did the FBI swoop in and arrest anyone in bell-bottom pants? Your example strikes me as reinforcing how UNLIKELY it is that anything nearly as apocalyptic as the fearmongers keep projecting is going to happen and how ultimately powerless the religious right really is.

And who exactly is suggesting that “we should gut the First Amendment so that evangelicals can express their resentment of liberal culture”? That is the sort of hyperbolic and tendentious interpretation that makes it hard to escape the impression that all this fear for the future is just the Left projecting its own totalitarian tendencies on the Religious Right. After all, in the twentieth century, most of the oppression and tyranny experienced around the world came not from the fascist right, but from the communist left. And there are no inheritors of the legacies of Hitler, Mussolini, or Franco currently in power, but millions still suffer under Castro, Putin, and the heirs of Mao.

Hello again Campesino,
Yes of course ANY American should have political rights, Christians or whomever. In fact, they should all have the same rights, if they’re adult citizens (again, my pet hate regarding selective marriage rights is provoked, not especially by you but overall; disgusting laws!). They can support and vote for whom they choose, and live as they wish, as long as…

As long as they don’t restrict or harm others in the process, and in my view, that’s what is likely if a particular worship group’s values get the backing of law, especially as part of the Constitution.

I suppose it’s a matter of perception, but from here, I know that I have no designs to take anything away from right-wing Christians or anybody, except for the ability to use the law to enforce a particular cultural agenda. You see, I’m not the one organizing campaigns or boycotts, initiating legislation, etc.  From where I sit, it’s they who want to supply the directive force behind how American legal and social culture will be shaped, to exclude or punish those aspects that they find theologically objectionable.

And more to the point, I most specifically object to fiddling with Constitution law and trying to alter it using sectarian priorities. This isn’t a hypothetical future event, it’s in hand right now.

In fairness, I would also object if sharia law or the five precepts for Buddhist lay followers were to become part of the Constitution. Same for secular humanism, or atheism. None of those can be made part of the fundamental legal foundation of the country, such that every regional and local law must be in harmony with it, without it making freedom of conscience and the pursuit of a life guided by one’s own moral principles impossible. They will automatically become discriminatory.

You see, I don’t want right-wing Christians to get hassled or legally marginalized either. There are loved ones of mine who are right-wing Christians! I’d never want them to be drowned out by laws that would make their religious lives difficult or impossible in their homes or among people who share their ways of worship.

But neither do I permit them, as much as I may love them, to dictate my own personal values, nor do I think they have the right to take over public institutions and recast them into their own image. I sure as hell wouldn’t tolerate them trying to compel me to obey them in matters of conscience, not the dearest one of them. Not for a second!

How much less, then, do I accept politically active strangers trying to do so?

If right-wing Christians want legal permission to carry on their faith-lives as they see fit, governing their behavior according to the teachings they hold dear, I’m there. Definitely. And the examples they provide for others may well be admirable ones, if what they’re doing is living lives of moral discipline and compassion for others.

But if what they want is to restrict me or others, using majoritarian bullying to gain control of the law for (it seems) the express purpose of forbidding me and others like me from living in ways that don’t harm them but that they find objectionable or distasteful for whatever reason, I’m out. Then it becomes a fight, and not one initiated by me or people who think like me.

If there’s a war over culture, it’s because some people don’t like what others do that violate the norms they wish were universal. But they aren’t universal, and the only way they can approach universality is if they became not a choice, but a compulsion. Like if the law upheld them but stomped upon me. It’s unjustifiable.

Hi Margaret,

I’m debating on whether to get “God’s Politics”, or not.  A relative of mine refuses to talk any further to me until I read it, so I may just do it. 

I guess I feel like I “get” Wallis after hearing him on so many interviews and reading so much about him.

Yes, he’s always been pretty much anti anything that involves America using force against communism, marxism, anything really.  He’s been arrested for protesting this and protesting that.  I think he has always been somewhat leery of capatalism, equating it with poverty.  I think capitalism is the greatest CURE for poverty the world has ever known.  I guess this is mainly why I have such fundamental reservations about his theses.

He’s a very confusing man to me.  I don’t like his shades of gray and endless talk of peace in the name of God while people who care not a wit for God (in any rational sense) or ANYTHING but their own power, wealth and self-preservation are plotting and executing against us.  A lot of hesitancy to act against those whose values are based on either a perverse or no belief in a higher power, and have demonstrated the results of that arrogance.  (mass graves and toppled towers come to mind)

Yes to Soviet appeasement, yes to unilateral nuclear freeze, no to MX missiles, no to Pershing 2’s in Europe, no to SDI, yes to the communist Sandinistas, no invasion of Grenada, no desert storm (I assume), no welfare reform, no force against Afghanistan, no holding Iraq accountable for 12 years of violating the terms of a cease-fire, among many other things.

It seems like he’s been so incredibly wrong (IMHO) on so many of the pivotal issues in relatively recent history, that I have little trust in his current proclamations.  One reason I would like to read his book is to see whether he reveals his radical leftist past, and if he does, how he accounts for it. 

I’ve heard that he becomes very uncomfortable when asked about his resistance to invading Afghanistan.  I would also be interested in his feelings on this subject, if he reveals them.

I don’t mean to bash him—I’m sure he believes his way is best for mankind—I just think history has demonstrated that he’s been wrong on some very key issues. 

How long till paperback?  :-)

Natalie,

Thanks for getting back to me.  Don ‘t think the paperback will be out for a while.

I would like you to provide me some links.  I understand what you’re saying, but I have not encountered the statements you’re making in reading the “Sojourner” on a monthly basis.

So, no rush, just please post some verifiable sources on your statements so I can read it myself.

Thanks.

So solly to interrupt boring conversation on Jim
Wallis and Christian Left-Right losers but on MSNBC site a reprint from May 9 Newsweek titled
Does The Future Belong to China ? (Yes).
Done by neocon Israel Firster nut but still much
valuable information.
Communist Party rule not disappearing anytime soon
and since most wars are between capitalist powers
this may be good news for Boobus Americanus.
Some warmongering nuts in the UnDemocratic Party
such as Pelosi and Lantos and sad sack Lieberman
been pushing for confrontation with China many years now. Too bad you missed earlier opportunities to nuke us but now too late, we nuke back.
American Imperium soon coming to welcome end.
With your movies like Sin City your civilization
(?)seeming toilet down.

People who must use ad hominem attacks and gross generalizations always have weak arguments that they augment with these insults.  Pitiable.

Absolutely agree, Margaret. Accept your admission.
See Numbers Before Politics for some honorable
servant’s latest postings.

Christian Right?  No such thing.  Insane, gluttonous seekers of power and wealth don’t ring any Christian bells I know about.
A godless tyrant is a godless tyrant regardless of how many times he says Christian.  That only makes them liars and tyrants.
Now comes the proposal of pre-emptive nuclear strikes against perceived enemies!!!

How do we spell Hitler armed with Nukes.  How will other nuclear powers react to this??
If Bush and his corrupt corporate regime aren’t stopped by some sanity in congress - or by a public uprising that can avoid being jailed by their police state.

Well, goodbye,

It is sad that we who are trying to warn our fellow citizens of the danger he represents have to suffer and die along with those who hysterically support the Bush regime.

Oh yeah- tell that phony chinaman to learn a little bit about those he would impersonate.

Rich

Hey, thanks, Lin Baio!  I really agree with Rick’s statement.  Everyone does see through your hoax.

Also, THANK YOU SO MUCH for persuing me all over the ITT pages!  Now I know I’m on the right track and you are peeing your pants with fear.  It’s so nice of you to praise my work for democracy with such vigor!

God bless you.

Racist Rich---thank you for proving my thesis.
Margaret----you scare dog off garbage pail.
Not you personally but ideas I interested in.

Mitch,

Thanks for your response.  And thanks for putting in writing that many of the values you on the right have are, in fact, shared by those of us on the left.  No small point that.  You wrote, “We all want some restrictions; the argument is over where to draw the line.” The problem, as I see it, is that the darn line keeps moving! 

As for “giving offense” being the measure for line drawing, that was not what I meant.  The right to offend is the mark of the 1st Amendment – and a price any American should be willing to accept – defend even.  There are some exceptions though.  You can’t yell “Fire” in a movie theater, for example.  You can’t libel someone in a newspaper either.  Free speech has limits.  Likewise, as you imply, the separation of Church and State surely also has limits.  But that doesn’t mean that the majority gets to decide what that is.  They only do within the framework of the law.  Might does not make right – pithy, but true.  A majority may want to allow prayer in schools but that does not make it right, especially for the lone Jew or Muslim or Atheist in the class.

<g> Yep, my response to the teacher question did assume a fair bit.  Couldn’t resist, hope you will forgive. 

Excellent point that people judge each post (and news as a whole) not just in itself, but also through the lens of their personal political philosophy.  To be fair, isn’t that how we assign value to everything? Still, the point you make is valid.  We all wear different shades of glasses, but that does not mean that my blue ones are by default better than your red ones.  The level of anger does seem to be rising.  Unfortunately, the talking heads, on both sides, don’t make any coin by preaching balance and reflection.  And that is truly a shame.

cal,

I appreciate your response. I should make clearer something that, when I wrote it, I could tell wan’t quite conveying what I meant. The problem that I see is not just that we all view things through the lens of our personal political philosophy; it is that we seem not to be able to talk to each other on the level of the particular, that every individual item the opposition brings into the conversation becomes an occassion to invoke the Apocalypse or the demise of western civilization. It reminds me of Orwell’s observation that political discourse was, in his time, more about scoring political debating points than seeking after the truth or solving mutual problems. We seem unwilling to concede, by and large, that those on the other side of the aisle may have a good point once in a while (present company excepted) and that “our side” is wrong sometimes. To admit such is to risk losing the ultimate game.

And to refine another point: Although free speech certainly has limits, I am not sure offending someone else is one of them. Yelling fire in a theater or libeling someone else are not offensive, per se: one is dangerous and the other is false. The identification of what constitutes being offensive is so subjective and personal (and there many degrees of each) that it strikes me as dangerous to introduce being offensive as some sort of legal or regulatory boundary. If I am given to offensive speech, let me pay the consequence in public shame or ostracism or in a bloody nose. But keep the dean of student affairs out of my life and the police off my back.

Mitch,

You wrote, “I should make clearer something that, when I wrote it, I could tell wan’t quite conveying what I meant.” And yet you sent it out anyway??  Mon Dieu!  I could never do such a thing, and I’m sure I speak for all of us on the Left too.  (To better illustrate my point I ask that you kindly disregard when I did the same thing two posts earlier.  Much appreciated. ;)

As for legislating against the offensive, it is a very gray area, but we do it nonetheless.  And we do it throughout all levels of government, federal, state and local, and beyond.  Pornography for example.  But I agree with you.  I worry that many on the Right want to legislate how I can act based on their moral beliefs.  As you say, what is offensive is personal and subjective.  Personal being the operative word.  Adultery is wrong, but should the State be involved if I’m guilty of the act?  (Beyond what they are in divorce proceedings where it can, rightly imho, play a role in the estate settlement.) How far can it go?  Taking the Lord’s name in vain?  Putting on a play?  Reading Steinbeck?  or Shakespeare?  It is a slippery slope to be sure.  Seems like you are on my side on this (or I am on yours).  In either case, it reads like you should be as worried about potential Christian Right inspired legislation as I am.

On legislated morality. To take a single instance, “adultry is wrong”.
Says who, and what exactly is adultry.  Is it physical or mental or emotional or political? 
In many cultures men have as many wives as they need or can afford.  There is even one that, after the wedding, sends the bride off with all the men for 2 weeks to insure pregnancy.
To the average American that’s not good but to them it’s the way they do things.
To the Southern Baptist everything that normal people do is a sin. However, if they do it - well, we just don’t notice.  I call them the American Taliban.
Churches and governments are people control money collectors and the chiefs on eiher side do the collecting.  If they help someone, the people chip in and do the work, the chief doesn’t chip in or help but he uses weapons like guilt, morality and other cute sounds to control his financial supporters.

No one knows who different people do what.  The act is neither moral or evil unless the motive is.
Mutual personal pleasure cannot be evil unless it is done for evil purposes. Only the motive can be judged.