A Fundamental History Lesson

A good article - at least from the “liberal democratic” perspective - but with a very puzzling ending. A few questions come instantly to mind:
- From which side of the Atlantic is the main danger to the community of liberal democracies now coming?
- What country is ruled by a religious fanatic (hint: the religion in question is not Islam) financed by big business believes Providence has chosen him to save (rule?) the world? And let’s not forget that his main rhetorical weapon is to stoke the flames of fear in the populace.
- In what country does a significant portion of the population believe that the earth will end within 50 years (and many of those wish to do their bit to help it end!)? Let’s not mention that these people are so deranged as to seriously believe the universe is only about 60 centuries old…
- In what country are the bill of rights being actively dismantled by the powers that be at this very moment?
Many more quesitons come to mind, but I assume the reader catches my drift.
Anarcho-Sozi
Writing from the former East Germany

An exercise in a little friendly Parody (or is it Sarcasm?).

A good article - at least from the “liberal democratic” perspective - but with a very puzzling ending. A few questions come instantly to mind:

- From which side of the Mediterranean is the main danger to the community of liberal democracies now coming?

- What country is ruled by a religious fanatic (hint: the religion in question IS Islam) financed by oil-rich Arabs believes Allah has chosen him to save (rule?) the world? And let’s not forget that his main rhetorical weapon is to stoke the flames of terror in the populace.

- In what country does a significant portion of the population believe that there are 100 virgins waiting for their martyrs (and many of those wish to do their bit getting there!)? Let’s not mention that these people are so deranged as to seriously believe the universe is only about 60 centuries old…

- In what culture are there no bill of rights to be dismantled by the powers that be at this very moment?

Many more quesitons (sic) come to mind, but I assume the reader catches my drift.
Jay Cline
Writing from the American Heartland

Oops, missed one.

What organization is ruled by a religious fanatic…

We have seen the enemy and it is us.

Kalil writing from NYC

Seems to me that fundamentalism is threat to liberty and individual rigts not matter where it’s coming from.

Whether the fanatics are Christians or Muslims the result is the same.

Perhaps the broader point here is that the “bill of rights” or any document of this type rests on a foundation of tolerance and reason, openess and an understanding that the “only thing to fear is fear itself”.

What does your post have to do with liberal trans-Atlantic democracies, Jay?

Yes, the man you refer to is financed by oil-rich Arabs, some of them personal friends of the Bush family in states ruled by autocratic puppet-regimes of the US. And who was the godfather of his movement? (Hint: his first name was Ronald and he was not pleased with Soviet involvement in Afghanistan.)

How many in these countries have their sights set on the 100 virgins - and how many Americans have their sights set on the “prime seats” after Armageddon?

An argument could easily be made for the view that no religious fanaticism in the world is as irrational and inhuman as the Rapture variety in the US (or is as widespread within its respective culture...) - but that would have nothing whatsoever to do with Fritz Stern’s article, so let’s drop it.

Oingo Boingo - Nothing to Fear (But Fear Itself)

Hey neighbor let me give you some advice
The russians are about to pulverize us
In our sleep tonight
That is if the crazy arabs
Or the riots don’t get us first
And the fire will rain down from the sky
The fire will rain down from the sky
People will die--people will die
People will die--people will die
But go ahead sleep tight in your beds
Remember what the wise man said

Chorus
There’s nothing to fear nothing to fear
There’s nothing to fear nothing to fear
There’s nothing to fear (but fear itself)
There’s nothing to fear (but fear itself)
And the temperature’s starting to drop now
The temperature’s starting to drop now
The temperature’s starting to drop now . . .

Hey little girl won’t you come this way
Won’t you let me buy you candy or perhaps a chocolate shake
Or perhaps some nice cocaine or perhaps a little kiss
Or perhaps a ride in my big car
Perhaps a ride in my big car
Won’t you make an old man happy
Won’t you make an old man happy
Won’t you let me show you paradise
(don’t ask your mother for advice)

Chorus

If they don’t turn you into a junkie or a zombie on the street
If they don’t turn you into a yo-cat or a grinning jesus freak
If they don’t take away your brains or turn your body inside out
If they don’t take away your passion with a color tv set
They’ll take away your heart and soul
They’ll take away your heart and soul
They’ll take away your heart and soul
Don’t let them take away your heart and soul
But remember what the wise man said

Chorus

The argument I would make is that this is a facetious argument. Comparing Nazism with the political rights of people, religious or not, is like saying my car is blue and so is water so my car must be made of water.

Nazism was not about religion or the religious views of one segment of the electorate, it was a gang of thugs seizing power. When the American religious right stages a violent brown-shirt putsch, I’ll change my tune.

Until then, I will not drop my beliefs simply because you say so.

The point of my parody was to show the illogic of argument and assertions of the first posting.

Jay says, “ When the American religious right stages a violent brown-shirt putsch, I’ll change my tune. “

Jay, isn’t it too late then?

Coming soon to a town near you or a town far away.

What is the difference?

And it is not the “American religious right” or anyone other convenient label, it is the “thugs” who have usurped their ideals and pander to anyone as it serves their thuggish and selfish agenda.

David,

Of course, silly me. I forgot about the Great and Glorious (and very bloody) Revolution of ‘94. Oh what times those were!

But let us not forget the coups of ‘96, ‘98, aught-aught, aught-2, aught-4, and coming to a town near and far, aught-6.

I believe in both Canada and Germany, those would be called, what? Elections?

To my point, comparing the rise of the German Nazi party to the political aspirations, and successes of the American religous right is like comparing mountains to mole-hills.

Not only is the difference of size apparent, but they are qualitatively different, both in fundamental characteristics and origins.

It is possible that the zealousness with which the Religious right wants to legislate personal morality may not conitnue to amount to some version of a psuedo-fascist party.

However the point of the article and the history of the rise of the Nazi party is that these movements gain prominence and power slowly and through existing legal means-elections, etc…

In addition, some of the signs are there: a reliance on fear and terror as weapons of persuasions; gearing up the war machine; a government propoganda machine (fake news stories broadcast as real ones, journalists paid to endorse administration positions, using the pulpit to endorse candidates and collect signatures for petitions; the scapegoating of a segment of society (gays, the poor), the quest to consolidate power across all levels of government-eliminating the possibility of real checks on power, and the alliance of business and religious interests in the quest for social and economic power.

For the really paranoid or aware, moves to enable the president to deploy U.S. military within national boundaries.

“...comparing the rise of the German Nazi party to the political aspirations, and successes of the American religous right is like comparing mountains to mole-hills.”

And like all protrusions from the ground, each can appear mammoth depending on your perspective.  Let us recognize the very ambivilance our man Jay applies towards the religious-(not)right was identical to that displayed by most Germans towards the National Socialists as the Weimar Republic declined.

Whether you are inclined to believe religion aided the Nazis in their accension to power or not, the fact remains that fascists by definition will draw on sources of power wherever they may be found.  And once all usefullness has been drawn, others must be obtained.  The only group who ever truly benifits from fascism are the corporations. As true in 1945 as it is today.
Just wait - as the neocon agenda advnaces we may yet see them abandon their legions of plastic jesus christian fundamentalists in search of another power source to feed upon.

JAY CLINE please go and do some research.

FASCISM ======= Corporate State.

NAZISM ======= Neo-conservatism.

Jay Cline why do you come into an obviously small and well informed forum with such a paltry grasp of even the most nasic comprehension of history, politics or economics?  Are you a massochist?

Jay Cline says

“Until then, I will not drop my beliefs simply because you say so”

Jay laddie nobody round here except maybe the Monk is under any illusion that you are likely to “drop” your beliefs, either because we say so or because FACTS around you are make it seem wise.  Honestly Rabbit has long since concluded that you are a very stupid example of Dittohead and have long since dug yourself into a tight defensive position, devoid of all facts or reason, based on faith alone and a grim determination, never to change any ideas.

Those things you call ideas have taken you a lifetime of rehearsing and learning by rote and they form the whole basis of your self worth. Without them you are a farcical fool, a Clown with no clues, a joke of history.

You cannot change ANY of your beliefs because the only support any of them have is each other.

In short JAY, either everybody else is wrong or you and your dwindling band of colleagues are becoming extinct and will eventually face the retribution, we, your opposition are planning for you bunch of Nazis and Nazi supporters.  Do you prefer NEO-CON supporter JAY? 

The chance is that it will be less offensive to call someone a NAZI than to call them a NEO-CON within a few years.

Anarcho-sozi, please ignore Jay, he is just a very dim troll we have at ITT at the moment, maybe formally known as Thinky actually.

The comparison of the article is obvious and it is delighful to see the Jay Cline can see it too. He is always so obvious in defensive mode.

“....... moderates and ....... elites underestimated ........, assuming that most people would not succumb to his Manichean unreason; they didn’t think that his hatred and mendacity could be taken seriously. They were proven wrong. People were enthralled by the ........ cunning transposition of politics into carefully staged pageantry, into flag-waving martial mass. At solemn moments the ............ would shift from the pseudo-religious invocation of Providence to traditional Christian forms: ......... “The National Government will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built up. They regard Christianity as the foundation of our national morality and the family as the basis of national life.”

----------------------------------
Nope, can’t see any parallels here..............

Jay also wrongly states the Hitler and his “gang of thugs” seized power. In fact they used the electoral system that was in place at the time, aided by backroom deals and impotent opposition. Today’s fascists own the computerized paperless voting machines and won’t let anyone examine their software. Today’s opposition party is utterly and criminally useless, the “good germans” of our country’s brush with fascism.

This modern mingling of particular sectarian agendas with politics points up one of the weakness of democracy, at least as most people conceive it. “Majority rule” is a central tenet of democracy, and as is well known was expressed as a political value to oppose minority rule (by royals and their noble allies, or by imperial rulers and the colonizers who supported them). As an ethic guiding the decisions of who should hold political power, its a vast improvement over what it sought to replace.

But the hazard is, of course, suppression of minority rights by an aggressive majority. It doesn’t matter whether it’s a religious, racial, or sex-preference minority, unless some institutional provision for protection of their rights is part of the inherent workings of the system, it’s all too likely that the aggressive majority in question will marginalize and abuse them. Each country has its examples, in the US skin color, religion, and sex-preference have all been (and so often continue to be) the basis for bullying of the smaller group by the larger. Is this democratic? Of a sort, perhaps, but its alien to the value of informed, free people being able to follow their own lights and contribute to their community by way of their work, intellect, and creative contributions. That’s a long way of saying, it’s oppressive. Inherently and irredeemably oppressive.

The simple solution of holding an election to decide what the law shall be and who shall hold power is not enough. A document that specifically preserves certain rights for all people, regardless of majority or minority status, has to be part of a constitutional system and, even more to the point, upheld and enforced even in spite of majoritarian demands. We have the document, the Bill of Rights (as well as other amendments to the Constitution) but it appears to me that the party in power and the crusader faction who provide a massive part of their energy have no intention of upholding it. Perhaps they’s just as soon see it repealed.

Short of devoted protection of rights against big-group bullying, an unopposable tyranny (because the majority will be the de facto tyrants), and the resulting alienation and possible violent uprisings from minorities are likely to follow.

This is why I always advocate the strictest neutrality when it comes to government’s position vis a vis religion. It’s impossible for faith-as-law to be anything but a burden upon those who believe differently. And you can preserve law and order, as well as life, liberty, property, etc etc perfectly well with a religiously neutral government. Reference to specific religions’ codes of morality are not necessary.

So if activist American Christians gang up and try to pass laws that foist religiously based limitations upon the community at large, they should be denied, period. That includes prohibition laws, laws that define other peoples’ marriage status, specific scriptures or sectarian monuments (unless several different traditions are represented in a tableau as an acknowledgment of diversity, i.e. still actually neutral legally)being erected on public property, teacher-guided prayers in government schools, scriptural myth being given equal time in public school biology classrooms etc.

The fact that law-from-religion can be allowed to stand in modern America demonstrates that too few people understand the risks associated with it. Or, they’re too bloody polite, fearing that they’ll be called atheists or religious oppressors (when it’s the writers of such laws who are the actual oppressors) and so kowtow out of an overweaning sense of political correctness.

Or, they want the freedom to live according to one’s own conscience to be deleted from American life.

That would make them unAmerican, I believe. Another reason they shouldn’t control the law!

sorry for all the typos in that last bit, but you get my point…

1) I have not yet seen (even in the original article) how Nazi’s usurped the electoral process. Nazi’s, as a political party, used the electoral to get their foot in the door, but subverted the process and then were able to outlaw the opposition. Mr. Brown does touch upon the subject, but the accusations of electoral fraud ar skimpy at best. Especially when you consider that the national elections apparently being referenced (2000, 2004) were faulty for NOT using such equipment. Is it a danger? Could be, but we haven’t gotten there yet.

2) jon t. and neruda are absolutely right the danger is from fascists and assigning that lable to the legitimate political aspirations is just wrong.

3) rabbit, as always, says a lot but says nothing.

Kuya argues that it is okay to pursue a political agenda, as long as he/she agrees with it.

My apologies to Kuya.

That is not what was being said. I was in a hurry to catch the bus and was responding to merely one sentence in the first paragraph.

Part 1

While I emphatically agree with Kuya on most points, I would take exception to three of them, at least from the perspective of my belief that they are already fully dealt with within the dominion of the American Constitution. I concur with the theoretical background of these three points, but I believe they were quite adequately addressed two centuries ago during the drafting and ratification of the US Constitution.

The simple solution of holding an election to decide what the law shall be and who shall hold power is not enough.

The Founding Fathers were well aware of the tyranny of majority. They had the lessons of Cromwell and the English Glorious Revolution, of their own contemporary experiences with the British Parliament, and of the behavior of the American colonists themselves.

Basic rights should, and are, guaranteed; and they are enforced through the separation of powers. No single system is ever perfect, and our system of governances does not attempt to be. However, the excesses of the dynamic tensions of legitimate political intercourse are adequately contained by the balance of power in the system established. Germany in the first quarter of the last century did not have those moderating structural influences and fatally suffered because of it. Any comparative analysis between contemporary issues in American democracy and the failure of German democracy in the last century needs to address that critical difference.

but it appears to me that the party in power and the crusader faction who provide a massive part of their energy have no intention of upholding it (the Bill of Rights - jc). Perhaps they’s just as soon see it repealed.

Or perhaps, they just interpret those rights differently. The Bill of Rights is not a multi-volume, detailed Bible of what those Rights are; they are a listing of only some of the most treasured of those Rights. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments, the last two in the Bill of Rights, make it very clear that all rights and powers that have not been enumerated belong to, and shall not be denied to, the states and the peoples.

Part 2

The right of the people to bear arms to maintain a well regulated militia has certainly been one of the most contentious Rights in contemporary times. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures is open to the interpretation of what is unreasonable, especially when it runs afoul of the Preamble, to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,

But right at the top, the establishment clause of the First Amendment, is the most contentious. From the point of view of the religious right, it is important to remember that the establishment clause contains TWO parts, each pulling in opposite directions. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. For example, it has oft been argued that not allowing voluntary prayers in school clearly violates this second half of the establishment clause. This argument is not an attempt at usurpation of democratic power, but an expression of legitimate political interest.

The point I would make is that, far from creating an opportunity for a brown-shirt conspiracy to usurp democratic principles, the Founding Fathers deliberately avoided being too exact in their wording (a lesson the proposed European Constitution could learn from). Why? Because they had no wish to impose their own tyranny upon Posterity. Each generation should be allowed to govern themselves.

Short of devoted protection of rights against big-group bullying, an unopposable tyranny (because the majority will be the de facto tyrants), and the resulting alienation and possible violent uprisings from minorities are likely to follow.

Exactly. Well, almost. The logic of this conclusion rests on the assumption that majority rule will always result in the majority become tyrants, and thus unopposable.

I believe I have already made the counter-argument to that.

“From the point of view of the religious right, it is important to remember that the establishment clause contains TWO parts, each pulling in opposite directions. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. For example, it has oft been argued that not allowing voluntary prayers in school clearly violates this second half of the establishment clause. This argument is not an attempt at usurpation of democratic power, but an expression of legitimate political interest.”

However Jay, when the far right attempts to legislate “end of life” decisions by holding special sessions of congress and having the president actually take time from one of his many long vacations to intervene in a specific case that is an attempt to impose a specific religious belief upon all citizens.

Another example, when plebiscites are used to determing that certain people are not entitled to access the right to enter into a legal marriage with a same sex partner the tyrrany of a majority, driven by religious dogma, violate individual rights. When the courts step in to invalidate these attempts at legal discrimination they are accused of judicial activism and so a concerted effort by the right to take control over the judiciary takes shape (in this instance the cronyism of appointing a Bush “yes woman” to the supreme court).

Kuya makes this point quite well: “the fact that law-from-religion can be allowed to stand in modern America demonstrates that too few people understand the risks associated with it.”

The establishment clause was meant to protect religion from government and to protect government from religion. It brilliantly creates a division between legal/civil authority and religious authority. What the above demonstrate is an attempt by the reilgious right to tear down that wall and govern from the pulpit. The authors of the consitution saw only to clearly the result of that among Puritan colonists in New England.

For those who merely seek power, taking advantage of zealousness is strategic. Whether racism or homophobia or anti-semetism, justify hatred in the name of god, then enact laws that marginalize (in effect dehumanize), and prop up those marginalized groups as straw men for everything wrong (moral decay--homosexuals, terrorist attack and natural disasters-homosexuals, feminists, liberals, those other people not like us).

It’s a fact of human psychology that people build up to brutality, start with namecalling, marginalize, deny rights, tolerate acts of violence, and soon you make your way to policies like the nazis.

Neruda,

Now I see where I got that mistaken notion about Kuya’s beliefs. That was actually you that really believes that those who have political beliefs that differ from yours are, by default and definition, wrong.

I agree with everything you said, except for your conclusion. You find the right’s political beliefs offensive and therefore they have no right to object.

When the courts step in to invalidate these attempts at legal discrimination they are accused of judicial activism ...

Isn’t that exactly what you are arguing against?? Not having a voice to oppose what you believe is wrong??

... and so a concerted effort by the right to take control over the judiciary takes shape

So? That is how a participatory democracy is supposed to work. When one group believes their rights are being infringed upon, they can engage the democracy and attempt to effect change. Note the word attempt. Just because the effort is concerted, doesn’t make it inherently evil.

I still see no evidence of brown-shirted usurpation; just the proper use of participatory democracy in action. Far from an impotent electorate, American democracy is stronger than ever. The left has the same rights and abilities and enfranchisement of the right.

And vis-versa.

It’s a fact of human psychology that people build up to brutality, start with namecalling, marginalize, deny rights, tolerate acts of violence, and soon you make your way to policies like the nazis.

But it is NOT a fact of psychology (or even logic) that namecalling (ever read the DailyKos?) invariably leads to policies like the Nazis

“So? That is how a participatory democracy is supposed to work. When one group believes their rights are being infringed upon, they can engage the democracy and attempt to effect change. Note the word attempt. Just because the effort is concerted, doesn’t make it inherently evil.”

Jay the crucial issue that you miss here is that what the right is attempting to due is deny other people rights and impose religion as law. You seem to conflate the idea that a minority (however ill-liked) having equal access and rights is similar in impact to having a majority (however much driven by a sense of moral certainty)deny that same minority equal access and rights. This again is a parallel to the rise of Nazis (easy moral certainties used to regulate personal freedom).

While what the left is arguing is principally that you don’t deny someone rights because you dislike their lifestyle. What the left is saying is that you can not leglislate from the pulpit. However you are free to go to church, condem anyone you want there, deny access to anyone you want there, and tell your children who is and is not morally reprehensible there. Whereas the right is saying you will live your life as I see fit or you will not be entitled to certain rights. The right is fighting to dictate moral choices.

The point of co-equal branches of government is that they are there to check each other’s power and better ensure the contitutionality of law and the protection of individual rights. That is why a republic is not a democracy and in a true democracy 51 can vote to kill (or marginalize) 49. What you see as “strong democracy” is mobocracy and in this case driven by fear and hatred.

My point about human psychology is that brown shirtism, if you will, is a gradual process. It starts with scapegoating a class of people, regulating personal life, enshrining corporate rights over the obligation to protect workers and the environment. The countries moral life is handed over to religious authority and it’s economic life is handed over to the most corrupt businesses. Fascist states are oligarchies, systems of cronies and enforcement. The former are trying to coalese. If they do, then the latter will follow.

However you are free to go to church, condem anyone you want there,

But God forbid you should stand up in Hyde Park and protest, heh? Sounds like someone is putting unfair restrictions on the other part of the First Amendment.

You seem to conflate the idea that a minority (however ill-liked) having equal access and rights is similar in impact to having a majority (however much driven by a sense of moral certainty)deny that same minority equal access and rights. This again is a parallel to the rise of Nazis (easy moral certainties used to regulate personal freedom).

Nope. Never said that. In fact, I said both sides have the same rights.

Jay,

“I said both sides have the same rights”

Again which rights are you talking about?

You think the religious right had the right to deny access and rights to gays?

Do you think this the same as gays wanting equal rights?

Do you think assembling a special session of congress to intervene in a private medical decision is the same as the right to make private medical decisions?

Do you think the right of women to choose is the same as the right to restrict women’s right to choose?

You seem to propose that both sides simply need to marshal enough votes and that makes what they want ok. You seem to equate the fight for the right to choose with the fight to restrict the right to choose.

And for the record I did not mean that the religious right could only vent in church. They can vent wherever they choose so long as they don’t promote verbal and physical attacks on others as a result of their deep rooted hatred. Much like the klan they can asseble, parade, and preach. And like the klan, they should not be permitted to enforce their personal belief systems on others. That partly is the role of the courts.

Yet you feel that they both have the right to leglislate lifestyle choices and that this is the same as fighting for equal rights and access.

like the klan, they should not be permitted to enforce their personal belief systems on others. That partly is the role of the courts.

Exactly. Well, not quite.

You continue to confuse legislative authority with enforcement authority, and both of them with judiciary authority. The courts do not enforce, they judicate. The legislature does not enforce, they legislate.

That is called separation of power.

You are right that is the seperation of power.

But think about this: Segregation was legislated into law. Police enforced those laws, Governers ordered police and national guard to suppress protest, judges sentenced protesters instead of upholding individual rights.

This is how all branches of government can be brought to one purpose by shrewd politicians, and the power of custom and tradition.

And Jay, I was hoping you would answer even one of my questions. Do you equate the right to exclude people from full participation and to deny equal rights with the right to full participation, access, and equality? Do you equate the right to make medical decisions based on personal morality with the right to leglislate personal morality?

Segregation was legislated into law. Police enforced those laws, Governers ordered police and national guard to suppress protest, judges sentenced protesters instead of upholding individual rights.

Yes, but you just disproved your whole argument. That sounds like the fascist that is being decried here, yet, what happened to it? Did democracy fail? or did it prevail?

As I said before, and I will now elaborate with my favorite Churchill quote; democracy is the worst form of governance, except for all that has been tried thus far.

Democracy is not perfect, yet I have not read anything here, short of extreme hyperbole, that would demonstrate that American democracy is in danger of a Nazi brown-shirt putsch.

Do you equate the right to exclude people from full participation and to deny equal rights with the right to full participation, access, and equality? Do you equate the right to make medical decisions based on personal morality with the right to leglislate personal morality?

I have not answered either of these questions for two simple reasons. I agree with you, and my agreement is irrelevent to the question of equating American democracy to Nazi fascism.

No one is saying, except in hyperbole, that the religious right has the right to exclude, merely the right to object and participate in the shaping of our government.

No one is saying, except in hyperbole, that the religious right has the right to legislate personal morality, merely the right to object and participate in the shaping of our government.

Certainly, there is a segment of the religious right (a very vocal minority of that group) that would bring about what you appear to be describing as a theocracy. But again, the only arguments made against a theocracy, and the alleged connection with the “majority”, has been all hyperbole, and to be honest, sheer scare tactics of the kind that the religious right is being accused of.

I would have thought that was evident from what I have already said.

“Yes, but you just disproved your whole argument. That sounds like the fascist that is being decried here, yet, what happened to it? Did democracy fail? or did it prevail?”

In reality what prevailed here was republicanism (not the party by the way). Minority rights were finally and ultimately upheld despite opposition by the majority and at a large political cost to the Democratic party.

I wholeheartedly agree with you about Democracy (read republicanism). It is not perfect but it is the best system we have tried so far. What I am arguing is that the way in which the republican power goes about the business of politics results in the weakening of the system of checks and balances and the weakening of the church/state boundary. These are the steps that we must counter in order to avoid the erosion of the American we love and that the founders envisioned.

“Certainly, there is a segment of the religious right (a very vocal minority of that group) that would bring about what you appear to be describing as a theocracy. But again, the only arguments made against a theocracy, and the alleged connection with the “majority”, has been all hyperbole, and to be honest, sheer scare tactics of the kind that the religious right is being accused of.”

I only wish you were right Jay. Because I agree that all of us should have a say in the shape of our government and of our country. And I agree that we need a vital country with an ongoing dynamic conversation about what we stand for.

The only reasons I don’t think you are right are: DOMA, 11 states with amendments excluding gays from marriage, one state with laws exluding gays from adopting, one state where gays are fighting an exclusion amendment that goes so far as to invalidate all contracts between same-sex couples because they approximate the rights of marriage, and the ability of Republican strategists to mobilize large numbers of voters using issues like excluding same sex couple from marrying and rolling back women’s reproductive rights.

I don’t agree with you because the “vocal minority” you speak of has begun to dictate the content of textbooks so that they include less evolution, less on the current state of knowledge regarding human sexuality, and more on faith issues such as creationsim (regardless of the current euphemism “inteligent design").

These things worry me because they set us backward as a nation. These things worry me because when fundamentalism overtake tolerance, we are headed for trouble. That is not hyperbole, it’s history.

If the religious right I am speaking of is only a “vocal minority”, where are the rest of the rightwing voices contesting the arguments of the zealots?

Mind you I am not attacking Christians or religious people. What I am arguing for is a government that unless the power of the “vocal minority” you speak of is checked then we are headed in a less democratic path. Remember that vigilance is the price of freedom.

Are there challenges to democracy, like ID in school systems, etc? Yes. Should we abolish those challenges merely because they are contentious, and probably wrong? No. Democracy isn’t pretty, it isn’t quick, it does not proceed in a straight line. But there are democratic mechanisms in place that thus far have survived the very real challenges thrown up at it in the past two centuries.

Absolutely, there are challenges that go against the grain and ultimately prove wrong. but we don’t live in a George Jetson future where you can just plug in questions and get instant answers. Even slavery, that hideous institution that even many if not most of the Founding Fathers opposed, took 80 years to kill, and then only at the point of a gun.

Life isn’t easy, life isn’t obvious. But to abolish challenges without “their day in court” , to condemn one man’s opinion and right to say it because he is an idiot, is one of the worst forms of Tyranny. Because ultimately someone has to make that decision, and I for one have no desire to live in a Platonic society.

The Rise of Nazism was more about the search for easy answers, than anything else.

Jay you say, “ to condemn one man’s opinion and right to say it because he is an idiot, is one of the worst forms of Tyranny. “

Very well said. Look who had the same idea.

“ The only tyrant I accept in this world is the still voice within. “ Mahatma Ghandi

The last Rabbit post was made before reading the last 2 Jay posts................................................................This twerp makes Rabbit want to throw up. It is the most overweaning, whining pompous little dimwit ever to pass this way.  Rabbit swears it’s worse than THINKY ever was.

It thinks it’s silly little homilies pass as some sort of worthy comment, it babbles on about things it knows nothing of, expounding generalities. Decryng the very things it has itself created and was only just in the process of arguing in favour of.  It is in short an IDIOT.

“The rise of Nazism was more about the search for easy answers, than anything else”

JAY almost nailed it then, must have been an accident. 

The rise of Nazism was a consequence of an ACCEPTANCE of easy answers, when they were fed up in the right way.

IT is obvious to anybody else, except Jay of course, how well this would describe the rise of the NEO-CONS.

This was the post that should have preceeded the last post which was not meant to be the first post but was.  Jay like many such morons keeps referring to the US constitution as if it still stands as it once did.  The past five years of Neo-con government has passed without his noticing anything they have done. It has completely escaped his notice.  Incredible.

Jay cannot possibly agree with anything Kuya says, but he thinks he does.  Kuya you deserve Kudos for a very concise and insightful post.

You don’t need Rabbit to tell you to ignore the yapping from the pretentious little troll, he doesn’t even understand half the words let alone the concepts they convey.

Nobody condemns Jays right to say any garbage which occurs to him to say. Stop being so defensive you stupid little troll. We can point out the illogicality and the lack of reasoning and the mistakes in your opinions without telling you not to say it.

By all means keep on repeating your determined Ditto. It is always useful to have an object lesson of all that is wrong with the USA, on hand so to speak. Just because we already know everything you believe, doesn’t mean we don’t want to hear it all again. We enjoy pointing out the flaws in your argument, content and method.

Wow, I wish I had been able to participate in the exchange between Jay Cline and Neruda following my earlier post. Alas, work duties had to take precedence.

I would certainly never advocate any suppression of religious practice per se, as long as it wasn’t crime or victimization in religious guise. And as long as the people involved freely consented and participated as a free-will decision.

I actually do think that the Constitution and Bill of Rights as written could provide sufficient protection if the principles they advocate (require, actually) were implemented in the spirit that the writers seemed to have in mind, i.e. what I call relgious neutrality, what most others call separation of church and state.

But I don’t see that in action. So perhaps it’s less the formal structure I have a problem with, and more what I see as the freaking of that structure to subvert its intent.

Mentioning two high-profile issues that to me are very meaningful: unequal marriage rights and Old Testament mythology becoming required curriculum in biology classrooms.

What these have in common, I think, is a source-point in passionately held beliefs, which fuels “democratic” activity leading to laws that compel specific theological stances upon the community, some proportion of whom do not adhere to those belief systems’ ideas.

Passionate belief? No problem with me. But when they have the force of law, I have a big problem indeed. The law is a heavy and sharp weapon. It may be a necessary social factor to avoid law-by-vendetta, but it’s still a force. Force is its mechanism. Cops, courts, fines, handcuffs, jail cells, confiscations, appropriations, and (sometimes) executions.

I don’t want someone’s passionate religious beliefs having that kind of force behind them.

So when a man loves a man, and wants the same legal rights and benefits I enjoy as a married man myself, I believe he should have them. Or she-and-she, as the case may be. Some want to tweak the meaning of the word “marriage” so as to reserve it for religious references, but I don’t agree. I don’t see a reason to fiddle around with terminology. As I’ve said a few times on this site when the marriage rights issue has arisen, marriage is not a Judeo-Christian invention. My respect for the wisdom (and there’s plenty of wisdom to be found) coming out of those traditions do not make me feel as though they deserve special dispensations with regard to legal rights held by citizens, or to be able to claim as their own a ritual that goes back to caveman days in one form or another.

There can be Christian marriage, but not all marriage derives from Christianity.

So the attempt to force the law (or language) into a shape that suggests any such equation is, to me, invalid. If, that is, equal protection under law and protection of rights is the agenda. If there’s another agenda, perhaps one based on influencing society and culture into a more Christian mold (or select whatever religion you’d fill in here), I feel they should be directly and unequivocally denied.

Of course this would have nothing to do with particular couples living in accordance with Christian teachings and limitations if they so choose. Of course they must be able to follow their own lights in that regard, with no hassle from law or neighbors.

(continuing from the previous post)

As for Creationism (or any of its euphemistic synonyms) becoming required curriculum in biology class, I have equally little patience. The fact that some teachers and textbooks give a simplistic or outdated take on evolution, natural selection, speciation, and the origins of life and humanity (which is a justification I’ve heard for allowing “equal time” to the Book of Genesis) should be the basis for improvement of schooling practices. It does not warrant pretending that a millennia-old creation story (read: myth) has the same value as a scientific principle compared the realizations that have come to light since Wallace and Darwin published their theses as the basis for modern investigative techniques.

The simple truth is, evolution is not just a belief system on par with creationism, unless of course one stops at a cursory description without reference to the decades of investigation, debate, and scientific challenge since The Origin of Species and The Descent of Man were published. Evolution has become not just an alternative theory, but a paradigm for how to understand the way life on this planet works and has worked from the beginning. It may be imperfectly described by current theoretical models, but the benefit of the scientific method is that theories are challenged and tested against empirical evidence. And there is evidence, more each year.
There isn’t a bit of evidence that the Earth and universe were created in 6 days by way of almighty, i.e. magical powers. Actually, if understood allegorically or symbolically, even the Genesis story has real merit as a bit of anthropological data helping us to understand what the forebears of modern Judeo-Christian-Islamic believers had in mind when they wrote their scrolls.

So again, forcing a bio teacher by law to teach a Bible story as if it had the same scientific grounding as evolutionary theory is invalid. They’re simply two different ways of thinking, fundamentalism and scientific inquiry. They’re not interchangeable, even if a majority of people in a given community have a passionate attachment to scripture.

If anyone wants to teach their children Genesis-as-scientific fact, I suppose they will. They’re mistaken, but there’s no crime in that (although I think their children may be the losers, in terms of their intellectual development). But at school, particularly public school, keep Bible teachings out of the biology class. That’s not the proper venue for it. Even if the majority wants to believe that it is. There’s evidence to support one stance, and none to support the other.

Create a class on cultural anthropology or on the study of religion, if you want the Bible in the curriculum. At parochial schools, include worship services.

But don’t permit religion to be mistaken for science. It isn’t. Not Christian relgion, nor Muslim, Buddhist, Jewish, animist, or New Age.

Why would we allow any of those belief systems to have the force of law? Only to negate the influence of the others, as well as negating scientific inquiry.

Well, forgive the harangue, as I said above, these are extremely meaningful issues to me and I guess I went off a bit. But I’m still convince my views, if they were the ones to guide law instead of sectarian beliefs being allowed to, would still allow free worship while ensuring equal rights and intellectual advancement.

I have been reluctant to get into the debate on specific issues that some see as egregious, mostly, as I have indicated, my opinions on same-sex marriage, evolution vs ID, abortion, etc are irrelevant to the original authors implications of danger of a rise in American counter-democratic forces.

Whether I believe that same-sex marriages are not prohibited by the constitution (they’re not), whether ID or any flavor of Creationism is ignorant and not science (it is, and it isn’t), whether Roe v Wade was justified (it was) contributes nothing to my attempt to rebut the hysteria, the fear-mongering of those who would claim American democracy is in peril just because those beliefs are not universally accepted.

To argue that one’s beliefs are self-evident to oneself, and then project that to the democratic body as a whole, is disingenuous. To then claim, but that is what the religious right is doing, is like listening to my four year old when she says, “But Johnny hit me first.”

Passionate belief is no excuse for intolerance, from either side.

“Passionate belief is no excuse for intolerance, from either side.”

I think Jay that we are all in agreement here. While we may have no patience for the beliefs of the Religious Right for the reasons that Kuya articulated and, it seems, you agree with. However we are not advocating leglislation that curbs their way of life or indoctrinating their children with our “faith”.

“I have been reluctant to get into the debate on specific issues that some see as egregious, mostly, as I have indicated, my opinions on same-sex marriage, evolution vs ID, abortion, etc are irrelevant to the original authors implications of danger of a rise in American counter-democratic forces.”

By avoiding specific issues you are skirting the principle argument that we (I believe in this instance I am echoing Kuya and Rabbit)are making. The threat to our democracy (Republic) is that the Religious right is seeking to use the force of law in order to impose their views on sexuality, creation, conception, end-of-life, etc. on everyone else. They are seeking to curb other people’s right to equal access. They are seeking to indoctrinate everyone’s children with their faith. They are seeking to regulate the public domain. They don’t simply want a place at the table. They want the table and they want to decide what is on the menu for everyone, how people eat, what they drink, and what conversations they can have. And they are enlisting considerable influence with the Repub party to gain the force of law for their beliefs.

Jay, the difference between our “sides” is that we are perfectly happy to share the table with the Religious right. And we don’t want to make the accept equality for gay americans through force of law. We are seeking to protect every persons right to live their lives as they see fit so long as they are not causing harm to others. They are not as generous in thier position.

That is why by avoiding the specifics you are able to stay at this abstract and removed level which they enables you to equate to very different views of the process of and outcomes of government.

Part two.

Jay I want to lay this case out one last time. There are converging lines of policy that are undermining the liberties we have always treasured in this country.

Religion fundamentalism seeking to usurp the law to impose their theocratic vision of America.

+

The exploitation of public fear arising from national disaster (via attack or force of nature)to pass legislation that undermines our basic freedoms. For example protections from illegal search and seizure have been routed by provisions of the Patriot act whereby police and intelligence services have the right to search your home without your knowledge.

+

Administration propoganda made with federal funds (see previous entries).

+

Massively deregulation of various industries, the loosening of protections for workers, and the doling out of no-bid contracts where the contracter is given free reign to “blead the beast”. Those who speak seem to have a pattern of resigning, being harrassed, or being demoted.

+

We have a president who pushes the boundaries of executive authority and priviledge and seems to see congress and either a rubber stamp or an encumbrance. And as far as the Supreme Court, the more “yes people” (cronies) the more control he has. Even now he seems to believe that it is a priority to allow the president to deploy the American military on American soil. That’s why we have police and the national guard. There was a reason why Roman generals did not bring their troops across the tigris. And when they did, the Romans lost their Republic.

Religion + Increased government authority + decreased freedoms + Corporate/government cronyism and quid pro quo + Increased executive power (in fact the most imperious presidency in U.S. history) + decreased checks on power between branches of government (put another way, the enlistment of all three branches of government in the service of a fundamentalist-easy answer-idealogy).

However we are not advocating leglislation that curbs their way of life or indoctrinating their children with our “faith”.

No, of course not. It is already enshrined in law with Roe v Wade, which is undeniably the touchstone of this whole left vs right debate.

From the perspective of the religious right, allowing teenage girls to get abortions without parental consent, handing out condoms in health classes, teaching safe sex and not no sex; all that infringes on their right to raise their children per their own beliefs, a right which you have already paid lip service to.

Why is it so hard to understand their legitimate parental concerns, and yet express disbelief and conjure brown-shirt conspiracy fears when they don’t, can’t, or want to understand untraditional marriages?

Parody time again:

The threat to our democracy (Republic) is that the Liberal left is seeking to use the force of law in order to impose their views on sexuality, creation, conception, end-of-life, etc. on everyone else.

and,

Secular fundamentalism seeking to usurp the law to impose their theocratic vision of America.

I deliberately left the theocratic connotation because that is exactly what it is. “we are right and you are wrong, so shut up”

It is not about the specific issues. It is about the fundamental rights that have been carped about here since the beginning.

While we may have no patience for the beliefs of the Religious Right for the reasons that Kuya articulated

No, we are not in agreement.

I have infinite patience for ANYONES beliefs. I have absolute intolerance for people who have no tolerance for other points of view.

“The threat to our democracy (Republic) is that the Liberal left is seeking to use the force of law in order to impose their views on sexuality, creation, conception, end-of-life, etc. on everyone else.”

Let’s clarify a point you seem to be deliberately obfuscating. Giving gay couple equal access may be disagreeable to religious fundamentalist but it does not deny them equal access. Whereas enshrining discrimination in law certainly does deny gay americans equal access. Giving women the right to choose does not mean that women have to choose to have abortions. Whereas rolling back that right means women no longer can make that choice. Giving someone the right to decide how to end their lives does not mandate that everyone end their lives or not end their lives. Denying people that right certainly keeps them from having the choice. The differences is the left or secularist or whatever you want to call us are not denying anyone the right to live the way they want to. Whereas the right or at least that very powerful and very vocal minority is in fact trying make people live according to their religious principles.

What don’t you get here? It is not about tolerating their beliefs it is about saying loudly and clearly that their beliefs must live alongside ours, that personal morality is just that personal.

At to the “allowing teenage girls to get abortions without parental consent, handing out condoms in health classes, teaching safe sex and not no sex; all that infringes on their right to raise their children per their own beliefs, a right which you have already paid lip service to.”

Schools should base and I did say SHOULD on research, evidence, and scholarship. They are not supposed to tell kids which choice is more moral. They are supposed to educate them about their bodies, about sexuality, about what research shows by way of teen sexuality, including information about the impact having sex and the impact of not having sex on teens’ lives. The research on abstinence only, by the way, is positive. And the areas where it fails have everything to do with moralizing and misinformation.

What we are saying is that the bible, the koran, the torah, or any other holy book has no place outside of classes on religion or spirituality in schools. That does not stop parents from raising their kids in faith.

Once again you seem to be purposefully equating a position of tolerance and openness that allows for the free expression of religious faith with the desire to make religion into law. That is a belief shared by secularists and people of faith on the left and, I believe center.

Perhaps Rabbit is right, you stuck on talking points where you obfuscaste facts to draw facile and erroneous comparisons.

Jay:

No one is saying the Religious Right have to send their children to public schools.  No one is saying parochial schools have to teach secular values.  You say they are justified in insisting on the right to ‘voluntary prayer’ in public schools without saying what that means.  In truth, there is no force on earth that can effectively forbid voluntary prayer as it is the silent act of an individual’s inner thought.  Do you mean something else? 

One wonders if you are at all cognizant of the formal paradox of your statement vis~a~vis intolerance.  Inferring from the poor level of reading comprehension and logical incoherence you so blatantly display with your unprincipled screed, one finds it doubtful.

Does no one see the double standard here?

No one is saying the Religious Right have to send their children to public schools.

No one is saying kids have to say “In God We Trust” when saying the Pledge of Allegiance. No one is saying gays have to self-confess their sexual orientation when the enlist in the military ("don’t ask; don’t tell").

Why is it alright to object to these impositions of our Rights, but not alright to object to them just because you go to church every Sunday?

That is the issue, people. No matter how much one accuses of me of obfuscast(ing) facts to draw facile and erroneous comparisons, isn’t that exactly the argument methodology and logic being employed to counter my arguments?

You’re right.

American Democracy is in danger of a fascist take over.

“No one is saying gays have to self-confess their sexual orientation when the enlist in the military ("don’t ask; don’t tell")."

Did you seriously use this example or were you parodying youself? Do you not see how very stupid this example is? If not let me make it clear

NO one is saying that gays can’t remain closeted and deny their sexual orientation to gain acceptance into the armed forces? No one is saying that as long as gays “pass” for straight they can’t serve their nation and be treated with proper human respect.

I must say I am dumbfounded by this example, simply stunned that you would actually use it.

No one sees a double standard because there isn’t one. You are simply making an invalid comparison.

NO one is saying that gays can’t remain closeted and deny their sexual orientation to gain acceptance into the armed forces? No one is saying that as long as gays “pass” for straight they can’t serve their nation and be treated with proper human respect.

Where have you been for the past decade? The gay community has long objected to this policy, ever since its inception....

“NO one is saying that gays can’t remain closeted and deny their sexual orientation to gain acceptance into the armed forces? No one is saying that as long as gays “pass” for straight they can’t serve their nation and be treated with proper human respect.

Where have you been for the past decade? The gay community has long objected to this policy, ever since its inception....”

Just to clarify, I was restating your example in language that would demonstrate why it was such a bad example.

You do understand what a double standard is?

If it is alright to tell one group of people to just deal with it ( No one is saying the Religious Right have to send their children to public schools. - your words, not mine), then why is it not alright to tell another group to just deal with it?

Why do gays have rights to object and advocate a change in the law based on their beliefs and rights, but the religious right does not?

Rights apply universally, or not at all.

Specific issue, please respond.

Why is it wrong for parents to object to laws that allow their teenage girls to get abortions without parental notification? Why is it wrong to advocate for laws that require parental notification?

“Why do gays have rights to object and advocate a change in the law based on their beliefs and rights, but the religious right does not?”

Because gays are fighting for equal access and full participation and the religious right is fighting to deny gays equal access and full participation.

The fight for the right to equal access and full participation is not equivelant on any level with the fight for the right to deny someone equal access and full participation.

Do you not see how very stupid this example is?

Yes, exactly. That was my point.

“Why is it wrong for parents to object to laws that allow their teenage girls to get abortions without parental notification? Why is it wrong to advocate for laws that require parental notification?”

There is nothing wrong with advocating for parental notification.

However parent’s rights and responsibilities regarding their children must always be weighed against the rights of their children and the ability for adolescents to begin making important life choices.

Should a 16 or 17 year old girl have no reproductive rights?

What about cases of child abuse, rape?

Would parental notification laws lead to back alley abortions for teenage girls?

Here there is room for a conversation about the rigts of parents and the rights of their teenage girls. Here there is room for principled discussion about rights that doesn’t involve discriminating against a class of people based on theologically based prejudice. Here we are not talking about the right to equal access versus the right to deny equal access to a a class of people.

“That is the issue, people. No matter how much one accuses of me of obfuscast(ing) facts to draw facile and erroneous comparisons, isn’t that exactly the argument methodology and logic being employed to counter my arguments?”

No, it isn’t.  Are you just being contrary to be contrary?  You aren’t making even the slightest bit of sense.

“ In truth, there is no force on earth that can effectively forbid voluntary prayer as it is the silent act of an individual’s inner thought. “ - luminous beauty

Hallelujah and Amen

There is already enough coercive pressure on students, forcing them into prayer; it’s called the pop math quiz.

Jay,

I agree with Kuya, Neruda, and Luminous Beauty and Rabbit too.

But I hope this helps you feel less alone.

I wish that there was no murder and violence. But there is and always will be. In this world at least.

I wish there was no rape, no unwanted pregancy and no abortion too. But there is and always will be. This world, again.

I hope for a better world here and now and believe in a better world for the next

We (should) have universal laws, and we (should) have personal morals that tell what is right and wrong. Sometimes the laws will conflict with the morals. It could not be otherwise.

Advocate for what you think is truth and justice but sometimes you have to tell yourself to let the wicked be wicked.

Free will exists.

Jay, Thank you for patiently explaining to others that “viewpoint discrimination” against Christians endangers everyone’s freedom. Some posts clearly equate voting by Christians as a form of immoral behavior. The “enemy is us” description belongs to those who shout down anyone who disagrees, and who believe they are rational as they refuse to listen to the reasons why others disagree. Carry on, at least you are forcing some folks to justify their positions. The irony of the original article by Mr. Stern is that today’s liberals and leftists are the ones who see sexist, homosexual-killing, oppressive Islamofascists as “freedom fighters” and deny Jews the right to defend themselves. Also, he tosses in comments about christians but as you correctly observed, Fascism sought to corrupt power wherever it found it. Neither the Nazis nor the Communists were Christian, yet they were the greatest mass murderers in history. Those who congratulate themselves on their moral rectitude due to unbelief need to ask themselves whether they, too, have become friends of murder as they embrace anything opposed to Christ.

“Thank you for patiently explaining to others that “viewpoint discrimination” against Christians endangers everyone’s freedom. Some posts clearly equate voting by Christians as a form of immoral behavior.”

This conversation is not about Christians in general (unless unlike Jay you believe that the small vocal minority speaks for all Christians). This is about those whose viewpoint is that they should be allowed to legally exclude others from equal access and full participation (gays). This is about those whoses viewpoint is that they should be in charge of women’s reproductive choices and people’s end-of-life decisions. In other words it’s against our own home growm fundamentalist fanatics. Don’t you get the difference between coexisting with people you don’t agree with vs denying people full participation and full rights because you don’t approve of their lifestyl choices?

“Carry on, at least you are forcing some folks to justify their positions. The irony of the original article by Mr. Stern is that today’s liberals and leftists are the ones who see sexist, homosexual-killing, oppressive Islamofascists as “freedom fighters”

When spouting nonsense at least do a litle fact checking. No one in this conversation has referred to Islamofascists as “freedon fighters.” Historically speaking that was Reagan and his bunch when they were supporting Osama to fight off the Soviets in Afganistan.

Second you are simply lying about what we believe. No one thinks that Osama, the taliban, or terrorists are “freedom fighters” and we are the bad guys, no one who has posted here. But if it helps you to put up straw men then carry on.

“Neither the Nazis nor the Communists were Christian”

Have you never seen a history book?

Hitler wrote: “I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord..”

In addition Nazis were anti-communist. And Communist were themselved fanatical fundamentalists of a type.

Not defending what Scott said. I am not sure what Scott said.

But I would like to comment about this quote :

Hitler wrote: “I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord..”

When Hitler said this he was either deluding himself or lying to others. Maybe both somehow.

If Hitler was truly doing the “work of the Lord” he would be doing this commandment of the Lord :

“ A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. “ John 13:34-35

David,

I think what this quote illustrates is what happens when someone invokes religion to justify prejudice and impose an idealogy on a whole nation.

“ A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another. “ John 13:34-35

This aspect of Christianity is best of it and yet it is the voices of fire and brimstone that dominate the current conversation. If you truly love others and Jesus loved then you don’t try to exclude them from full participation and you don’t legislate moral choices for them.

Neruda,

“ This aspect of Christianity is best of it and yet it is the voices of fire and brimstone that dominate the current conversation. “

Exactly, I am pointing out the hypocrisy of some of the voices you refer to. Letting my little light shine.

“ If you truly love others and Jesus loved then you don’t try to exclude them from full participation and you don’t legislate moral choices for them. “

Exactly, I am trying to include their participation and setting a good example for them. What else can I do? Beat them over the head with their Bibles? Then I have become like them.

or conversely ..

Exactly, I am trying to include their participation and setting a good example for them. What else can I do? Beat them over the head with __________? Then I have become like them.

.. fair is fair. Any good words to fill in the blank?

Not trying to play both sides. More like playing another side.

I have to say that I like your approach David.

As for the blank hmmm… can’t think of one now.

What is frustrating in these conversations is that passing leglisation the excludes is seen as merely a “viewpoint” not as the oppression that it is. What’s more frustrating is seeing religion used to justify that opression.

“viewpoint discrimination”

Scott said, “ Jay, Thank you for patiently explaining to others that “viewpoint discrimination” against Christians endangers everyone’s freedom.”

Discrimination against anyone endangers everyone’s freedom. It goes both ways.

... a little joke now :

Viewpoints ??  Viewpoints !! 
We don’t need no stinkin’ viewpoints !!

Neruda,

You just said “ What’s more frustrating is seeing religion used to justify that opression. “

Correct, “used” in that selfish men, fascists, have subverted religion’s ideals to justify attacking the ideals of others. But there are some honest men trying to reclaim true ideals we all have in common.

On October 10, 2005 at 5:39 PM ... You also included these signs of fascism ..... “ a reliance on fear and terror as weapons of persuasions; gearing up the war machine; a government propoganda machine “ and “ using the pulpit to endorse candidates and collect signatures for petitions “

...... hhmm, but doesn’t the “other side” use a “soap box” to endorse candidates and collect signatures for petitions too? just saying .....

You also included “ the scapegoating of a segment of society “ and “ the quest to consolidate power across all levels of government-eliminating the possibility of real checks on power “

Don’t forget these selfish oppressors too. The list is long and we are of an accord on it.

I agree that there defintely are honest men trying to reclaim the ideals that we all have in common. And they need all the support they can get.

I also agree that the “other side” by which I take you to mean the “left” of someting like that. The difference is that for a long time churches have enjoyed a priveledged (tax free) role in our society. Part of that status came from the recognition that churches would not explicitly endorse candidates, particularly during elections. This has been part of the long existing seperation of church and state. It’s recognition of that the power that churches possess should not be turned into a political weapon.

“don’t forget these selfish oppressors too. The list is long and we are of accord on it”

I wasn’t sure if you were referring to the ones who are using religion to attack and suppress others.

Good point on the tax free privileges. Aren’t there some non profit orginizations on the “left” that enjoy tax free privileges too, ones that might endorse candidates or collect signatures for signing. Anyone from the “right” know of any?

Enough. Don’t like playing one side against the other. We are all on the same side. Or should be.

Besides, a non profit church that uses it’s resources to feed and shelter the poor and homeless is very different than TV evangelist who lives a life of luxury and vice.

The selfish oppressors are anyone that uses universal ideals to deny the universal ideals of others. Whatever side of the fence they might think they are on.

See the “Reckoning with the God Squad” thread where Bill Moyers writes “ My spiritual forbears did not take kindly to living under theocrats who embraced religious liberty for themselves but denied it to others.”

http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2327/

I see. Have you been enjoying these exchanges? Blog exchanges turned to verbal wrestling, complete with masked wrestlers.

The Moyers piece is great. He is clearly one of those men trying to reclaim the ideals we all share.

And I don’t think that churches or mosques or synangogues are necessarily right or left. I have never heard a pulpit endorsement at any church I have been to. Are all the people in churches or mosques or synangogues all robots marching in unison to whatever the fallible guy behind the pulpits tell them? They should not be.

Definitely enjoying these exchanges.

But not for the sake of confrontation.

For better understanding of the issues all around.

Verbal wrestling, as you say, is better than name calling, discrimination, oppression or worse.

How about you? Are you enjoying these exchanges? Learning anything? I sure am.

Verbal wrestling can be a good mental workout.

Have been enjoying the discussions and I have been def been learning and thinking through issues.

Right on. We are taking the masks off.

Thank Gaia Rabbit did not have to deal with all that rubbish Jay is still posting.

Did the Rabbit or did the Rabbit not tell folks this was a particularly stupid troll?  Some of them are so dull they have an ANTI-SHINE, they glow on the page in every posting.  Big NEON lights.................I AM A SELF RIGHTEOUS WILLFULLY IGNORANT PEST..................

The troll has an opinion about anything. Has anybody seen it produce any sort of a Factual reference, even un-sourced yet?

MONK.  Stop giving the damn troll a bone. It will only choke on it.  You are not helping it.

JAY is short for POPINJAY isn’t it?

Neruda and Kuya you are wise and reasoned and Luminous Beauty is......... as always..........

There is simply no way of communicating with such an one, honestly is there?

We are not all on the same side. We are definately not all on the same side yet. If it was only about opinions and freedom of speech issues as the Troll and others even might pretend, but it is not.  The matters in reality are a reduction in security and rights and freedom and democracy.  As the Troll shows us, and we have seen the same dance of the dunce performed so amny times, have we not? The troll gives an object lesson in what is wrong with the USA. The troll says nothing is wrong with the USA./ It is the rest of the world that is and has always been wrong. You and Rabbit know the Troll is very wrong. The troll is the proof that something is wrong, its reasoning, or lack, its attitudes and beliefs, all absolutely insane.

You poor, poor Americans. Rabbit sincerely expresses his condolences on this fact, he truly means it. The fact is and many realise it too I guess, the Troll is the face of America to the world.  If you really want to understand, why the feelings in the world are as they are, regarding the USA, look no further than Troll, number 1,365,876, JAY CLINE.

Gruesome thought that this may be, most of us have an idea of the Generic American, which is not far removed from JAY, or SCORPY even.

It is thanks to the internet only that Rabbit knows that there are such fine and enlightened Americans as many who are represented on this site.  If this hasn’t occurred to you before, rabbit is sorry for the sadness this information is sure to bring. Hopefully it will help you to deal with DANGEROUS LUNATICS like him. 

Bad enough as it must be to have DUBYA fronting for your nation, the shocker must really be that the majority of the world only sees him as an uncommonly IGNORANT American, they assume that people like Jay Cline are TRUE BLUE AMERICANS.

You are are you not Jay Cline? You are the best American on this thread, tell the good people.............

Hi David and Neruda. Rabbit sees you in the grass.

Nope Rabbit was wrong....that was last night-time here. .......................................Rabbit looking down at the ground, between his toes............................thinks about it again.................................his friends are down there.................Rabbit looks up and sees the sun.......................................Soon that sun will leave Rabbit and go to his friends, down there.......................Rabbit looks down again..................Such a clever world..................hops away.......................^^...........................

Reflecting upon Jay Cline’s point way upthread about abortion rights having a central place in the religion/state debate, plus other posts about condom hand-outs at school…

I actually do have misgivings about schools handing out condoms. The thing is, my own teens know that I’ll help them get condoms if by some bizarre circumstance they couldn’t get them, and I won’t throw them out of the family if they become sexually active (presuming their not at the moment, which I do believe they’d feel reasonably comfortable sharing, considering the status of our relationship). Not all teens have this security at home.

It does seem a bit far-fetched to say that a teen who wants to get it on needs to be able to access condoms at school. A generation ago I could get them at the drugstore easy as can be, it’s even easier today. When all one has to do is drop into the nearest Rite-Aid, why does school have to be the source for birth control technology?

This is meaningful to me because I’m a schoolteacher, and I would be very unhappy with a district-mandated responsibility to give out condoms. I think I have a different job than that, as a teacher. I also don’t prefer the scenario in which the school nurse hands them out. They’re not hard to get around town, hell you can mail order them in assorted colors and flavors.

I also have misgivings about abortion rights, and not because don’t see the outcome of prohibition (I used to live in Pakistan, where abortion is illegal and is always either literally back-alley, toxin-induced, or done by a handful of sleazy “doctors” in sickeningly unsterile conditions). But to paraphrase Robert Heinlein in “Time Enough For Love”, life is already cheap, and abortion just makes it cheaper.

Still, I know that if my wife, stepmom, or daughter were raped and wanted to terminate the fetus, I’d help. If my daughter had an untimely pregnancy, we’d help her out so she could keep the baby (yes, again, I already know many women can’t count on that support), but in the end she would be the one to decide. It’s the conundrum between the tragedy of an unwanted and potentially unloved baby (is there something sadder than that?), and the other tragedy of doltish attitudes about sex and flushing away potential children as if they were valueless. Also, I really do see a difference between early termination and waiting around 5 or 6 months to abort, because of the differences in neural development at varying stages of pregnancy (i.e. consciousness, pain perception, budding self-awareness).

Granting person-hood status to fetuses (or not) and therefore granting them equal protection (or not) is the point of contention, and I admit to having at least two minds about it.

Perhaps “morning after” drugs that clear the uterus extremely early in the pregnancy could avoid (or maybe just evade) this conundrum.

(continuing)

(to continue)

One thing I will say, though. I believe I own this body. If I can own anything at all, land or gold or my toothbrush, then I surely own this body as sole possessor. I think that the consciousness within it has sole charge of the meat-and-bone it rides in, whatever the true nature of that consciousness. I don’t ask permission of anyone about what I eat, drink, smoke, or do for sexual pleasure. If I decide it’s time for this body to die because it’s in chronic, unendurable pain, I’ll find a way to check out. And since I claim that right for myself I have to grant it to everyone else. I don’t like the fact that this enables things that I don’t like (abortion makes me sad, it says such ignoble things about people and their ability to count upon each other for support), but I can’t gainsay anyone in their decision about how they govern their own body on any grounds that I myself would accept if they tried to control the way I govern my own.

And so I prefer to keep abortion legal, and regulated, and sanitary. And EARLY! As for parents having rights over their children, maybe liberalized emancipation laws are a way to approach it, so that minors can claim for themselves the same rights I claim.

I can’t say this is a coherent argument, it’s not really an argument at all, but I was provoked to thought by the posts I mention so I wrote. I re-read what I’ve written and I’m not satisfied with it, but I’ll post it anyway because I think it links to the religion/state topic. Y’all can do with it as you will.

Yes, I know I also don’t own the body of a fetus that might be within me. A further conundrum. I also don’t own the bodies of the parasites I’d unhesitatingly kill if they were within me.

Christ, who seriously thinks of a baby-within as a parasite, that just fucking sick!

You can see this bit confuses and distresses me.

Kuya, these are not easy issues to find answers to in a personal sense. From the point of view of law, it should be there to safeguard our liberty above all. The right to decide with and about one’s own body is FUNDAMENTAL to life. Nobody grants that right, it just is.

The conundrums you mentioned at the end are there, but only if one fails to recognise the fundamental right of every individual to control their own body. It is this BIRTHRIGHT, which is what comes first.  Iit comes from birth, not before birth in Rabbit’s book. It is one thing to protect the life of an unborn child, but just as it’s blood and life are its mothers so its rights should be treated as an extension of the mother’s rights, until birth. Thereafter a just and enlightened society would consider the child as having entered life as an individual and as such owns certain rights as an individual.

The thing is a line has to be drawn. We cannot go on aguing which came first the chicken or the egg, which is otherwise what the debate about abortion is.  This is a reasonable and natural line to draw, and it