Posts Tagged ‘Christian’

If the blob ate the blob, would the silly rabbit finally get his Trix?

Wednesday, March 5th, 2008

donohue-hagee.jpg

(On the left: Bill Donohue. On the right: John Hagee.)

The vile President of the Catholic League, Bill Donohue, took on the equally vile evangelical pastor John Hagee after Hagee endorsed the 2008 Republican nominee John McCain. From Greenwald’s interview with Donohue:

If someone said to me: who is the biggest anti-Catholic bigot in the evangelical community, I would say: hands down, John Hagee.

This is Hagee’s take on the Catholic Church:

Adolf Hitler attended a Catholic school as a child and heard all the fiery anti-Semitic rantings from Chrysostom to Martin Luther. When Hitler became a global demonic monster, the Catholic Church and Pope Pius XII never, ever slightly criticized him. Pope Pius XII, called by historians ‘Hitler’s Pope,’ joined Hitler in the infamous Concordat of Collaboration, which turned the youth of the [sic] Germany over to Nazism, and the churches became the stage background for the bloodthirsty cry, ‘Pereat Judea’…. In all of his [Hitler's] years of absolute brutality, he was never denounced or even scolded by Pope Pius XII or any Catholic leader in the world. To those Christians who believe that Jewish hearts will be warmed by the sight of the cross, please be informed-to them it’s an electric chair. (pp. 79-81)

The Roman Catholic Church, which was supposed to carry the light of the gospel, plunged the world into the Dark Ages…. The Crusaders were a motley mob of thieves, rapists, robbers, and murderers whose sins had been forgiven by the pope in advance of the Crusade…. The brutal truth is that the Crusades were military campaigns of the Roman Catholic Church to gain control of Jerusalem from the Muslims and to punish the Jews as the alleged Christ killers on the road to and from Jerusalem. (p. 73)

Unfortunately for Hagee, although he’s correct about the Catholic Church’s desire to destroy that which was a danger to its existence, at the end of the day Hagee is a dogmatic wackjob. His take on the Harry Potter series:

“As millions of people anticipate the release of the latest Harry Potter book and film, we’re reminded once again of Satan’s ongoing attempt to deceive and destroy. The whole purpose of the Potter books is to desensitize readers and introduce them to the occult [emphasis mine].”

Donohue is absolutely no exception:

On October 13, 2005, he appeared on NBC’s Today Show. While on the show he asserted that the crisis was “a homosexual scandal, not a pedophilia scandal”.

It’s my hope that these two strikingly similar looking obese white men (see above) eat each other or something.

The “I believe in miracles since you came along, you sexy thing” Edition

Sunday, January 27th, 2008

From the “I feel so very sorry for her children” file, a Christian lady goes nuts in a coffee shop:

From the “Jesus appeared to me in my food” file, a woman and a little girl find Jesus inside of a potato:

ofcoursethisisdivinewhywouldntitbe.jpg

It was her 10-year-old granddaughter who made her give the potato a second look. “My granddaughter said Granny did you see that in the middle? I said what?

And taking a closer look she saw the cross with Jesus in the middle. “It’s remarkable. Even when I cut the good part off the cross ended up being shaped like a tomb from long ago.”

From “Tom Cruise is a Scientologist” file, Tom Cruise on being a Scientologist:

Mein Gott ist ein überwältigender Gott.

Sunday, January 13th, 2008

Darwin’s theory of evolution helped fuel the rise of Hitler and contributed to the school-shooting massacre at Columbine, a former St. Petersburg City Council member wrote in a letter urging the Pinellas County School Board to expose students to alternative theories.

“Evolution gives our kids an excuse to believe in natural selection and survival of the fittest, which leads to a belief that they are superior over the weak,” Bill Foster wrote board members in a letter received this week. “This is a slippery slope.”

He continued: “One of the Columbine shooters wrote on his Web site, ‘You know what I love? Natural selection! It’s the best thing that ever happened to the Earth. Getting rid of all the stupid and weak organisms.’”

Dear Bill Foster,

We are a people of different faiths, but we are one. Which faith conquers the other is not the question; rather, the question is whether Christianity stands or falls… We tolerate no one in our ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity… in fact our movement is Christian. We are filled with a desire for Catholics and Protestants to discover one another in the deep distress of our own people.

- Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Passau, 27 October 1928

Oops, Dinesh did it again.

Tuesday, December 25th, 2007

Many libertarians are basically conservatives who are either gay or druggies or people who generally find the conservative moral agenda too restrictive. So they flee from the conservative to the libertarian camp where much wider parameters of personal behavior are embraced. To the sensible idea of political and economic freedom many libertarians add the more controversial principle of moral freedom, the freedom to live however you want as long as you don’t harm others.

So here we see another portrait of Atheist Christmas: bitter guys making sophomoric jokes and staggering out of the room inebriated.

Yes, I agree that many nominal Christians have also forgotten the message of Christmas. Even so I wonder: what’s the atheist equivalent of Christmas? Darwin’s birthday? For many libertarians I suppose it’s the day they get their tax refunds.

I’m occasionally frustrated by how easily an educated moron like Dinesh D’Souza finds a pulpit. I feel bad when I realize that his purpose is to generate buzz for himself and that I’m aiding this. But then I feel even worse when I realize that something like 80% of his readership finds him intellectually insightful and exciting.

Dinesh can always hop on the “I have diplomas” bandwagon when challenged. But, because morality to him is a negative authoritarian abstraction, he will always be wrong. And, if he’s right, they’ll be right for all the wrong reasons.

For me, an atheist, my christmas is Christmas. I celebrate this holiday on this day because it’s when the people that I know and like get to have off from work. The name of this holiday and the Constantinian-Christian origins of its name don’t mean a goddamn thing to me.

Dinesh’s sophomoric critiques of libertarianism are oddly placed. It’s as if he wanted be sure that he had hammered away at every nail before he headed home for Christmas. Regarding these, I have only two clarifications: First, the pursuit of personal gratification and happiness is not controversial. Everyone does it. We do it all of the time. And, second, a tax refund is not a cause for celebration. Throughout the year, the government overcharges you in order to increase revenue through interest. If you qualify, you get back what’s been fleeced. Hence, refund.

Anyway. Merry Christmas everyone. And, if you think your gifts suck this year, remember, nothing sucks like receiving windshield de-icer when you don’t have a car and attend college in South Carolina.

Hucka-[insert verbs here -- Personally, I tried using "fucka" but couldn't without coming across as crass and I'm just not feeling crass right now.]

Saturday, December 15th, 2007

huckfamily.jpg

The Huckabee family [insert gerund here] their [insert sarcasm here].

Presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee is in the news again. If it’s not clear from the stripes and elbow patches, Huckabee is a very very gullible man when it comes to faith and decisions made in faith. Andrew Sullivan has a good post on the matter of faith in politics. He writes:

[I]n a secular society, it is vital that when making the argument for your position in public, you do not deploy arguments that depend on or invoke religiously-revealed truths. The essential civic discipline in a pluralist democracy is to translate your religious convictions into moral arguments – arguments that can persuade and engage people of all faiths or none. Only a few secularist extremists are saying that people’s politics should not be informed in any way by religious faith (an impossibility in any case); most of us anti-Christianists are saying rather that political arguments should not be made on explicitly religious grounds, and political parties should not be allying themselves explicitly with one religion or another.

I’d like to add a third point to his last argument. Since it’s obvious that Americans will, on occasion (and sometimes twice), elect a whack job, the way in which a presidential candidate’s faith informs his (or her!) decisions must be considered by those who consider such things.

President Bush, for example, has a very substandard, immature, and ill-informed type of faith. He believes that his god will provide as long as he is doing his god’s work. He believes that his god is infinite and can provide indefinitely; so, he believes that his country’s capacity is infinite. Subsequently, Bush has made horrendously cavalier and reckless decisions. Compounding those decisions is the message that is intrinsic to his faith: Doing God’s work means never turning back.

Another type of faith is more thoughtful, soulful, and quiet. It allows the individual to agonize over and rethink decisions. It recognizes that Jesus didn’t hop on the cross and yell out “Beam me up, Daddy!” It’s a powerful type of faith that I could get behind even if the decisions made were the same as those decisions made in type of faith referenced in the former.

ITS [SIC] OUT OF CONTROL AND IN OUR FACE [SIC]

Sunday, December 9th, 2007

EVERYWHERE I LOOK, ON TV IN SCHOOL EVERYWHERE BUT IN CHURCH ALL I SEE IS GAY THIS, GAY RIGHTS THAT OPEN DISPLAYS OF THIER LIFESTYLE BEING PUSHED DOWN OUR THROATS, I KNOW THAT JESUS LOVES THE SINNER BUT HATES THE SIN, IT JUST APEARS THAT, THAT SIN IS BEING THRUST UPON US IS THERE NOTHING THAT CAN BE DONE, IS THIS WHAT WE HAVE TO LOOK FORWARD TO, SODOMITES RUNNING AROUND, OPENLY PROMOTING THIER LIFESTYLE, GAY MARRIAGE, GAY PASTORS, GAY CHURCHES, ITS LIKE GETTING OUT OF CONTROL, AND ITS VERY SAD TO SEE THIS DAY COME TO LIGHT, AND THERE IS NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT IT.
THATS THE SADDEST THING EVER

Dear Disciple4Christ,

Most straight people like gay people and want them to have healthy relationships. And most people (gay, straight, or otherwise) don’t spend most of their time thinking about the ways in which their neighbors are getting it on. So, I’ve gotta ask, you ever think that maybe you’re the sinful and weird one?

Symbiants for all!

Saturday, December 1st, 2007

So, my friend Michael is worried/scared about the influence and power that Christian fundamentalists exert over Washington. But, being my optimistic self, I see a light at the end of the tunnel. Though of course, my thesis requires that, as a nation, we descend further into madness. In full disclosure, that worries me. The recklessness of the mob knows no boundaries and witch hunts are always in fashion. However, the bizarre rhetoric that has flourished during this descent is, in a clinical sense, neat:

Sir Mike-A-Lot and the Queen of Slaughter
Posted: November 27, 2007
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Janet Folger
© 2007

Once upon a time in the dark days of the great slaughter, there was a determined search for a king who would bring the slaughter to an end.

The wicked reigned in both houses of the shadowy Council, and black-robed tyrants ruled the land. The slaughter continued and the good people mourned. They fought and debated, dissented and deplored for three long dreary decades until their voices grew hoarse. They were disappointed and weary and a little bit leery, but their goal they saw clearly: to shield and not yield until all babies were protected from slaughter.

Finally, the day had come when a king or queen they would send to the White Palace to bring the slaughter to an end.

Three contenders stepped forth against the evil Queen of Slaughter: Prince Slay-’Em, the Sheriff of Floppingham and Friar Mike, in that order.

Prince Slay-’Em wore red, but like Queen Slaughter came from Blueville. They wore different colors, but both wanted to kill.

Prince Slay-’Em was for the slaughter, but said, he “didn’t like it.”

“Will you stop the slaughter?” asked Brian Schmitt.

“No,” he replied, “but I don’t like it one bit.”

As the people could see by the Royal Scrolls, the Sheriff of Floppingham’s new position had holes. Sheriff of Floppingham was always pro-slaughter. He was endorsed by the pro-slaughter lobby. In fact, defending slaughter, it seemed, was the Sheriff’s old hobby. “My mother was pro-slaughter,” he boasted along with his wife, not explaining how he’d escaped with his life.

“Tax-funded slaughter! Catholic hospitals too!” Though the Sheriff wears red, it’s clear he’s true blue.

The Sheriff was asked, “Do you believe a maiden has a right to kill her son or her daughter?”

The Sherriff of Floppingham answered:

I never called myself “pro-slaughter,”
I never allowed myself to use the word “pro-slaughter,”
Because I didn’t feel I was “pro-slaughter,”
I would protect the slaughter law, I said, as it was, but I wasn’t “pro-slaughter.”

Then he smiled and he waved and he promised and he paid.

Then somebody said, “If our leaders won’t lead, hey, why don’t we? For the slaughter to end, the message we’ll send with our friar friend named Mike.”

Others jumped up and said, “He’s from our ranks, and I would give thanks to see him take the lead.”

And the poll numbers surged at the thought that the slaughter would be purged, as the people joined behind Mike.

“But he isn’t perfect! Some ranted and raved!”

Then Sir Chuck of Norris rode forth pushing the earth down before him. Now the way would be paved! “I’ll watch the border, just get things in order!”

He lowered his sword and knighted Friar Mike, “I give you Sir Mike-A-Lot who we all Like a lot! He’s the only one we can trust to slay the Slaughter Dragon and the wicked Slaughter Queen. Now that he’s lean, he’s a fighting machine!”

Sir Don-of-the-Wild rode forth on his steed. “I’m ready to lead!” he said. “Sir Mike-A-Lot will protect all the tots from slaughter and make sure each has a mother and a father.”

And following along, 3 million strong, came Don-of-the-Wild’s faithful army.

“Sir Mike-A-Lot,” in one voice they declaraged, “is the one we trust to protect Royal Marriage.”

So Sir Mike led the way, with each son and each daughter, to face the evil queen and her dragon of slaughter.

With new passion they fought, as each of them ought, and the dragon they caught and they slayed him.

Then the evil queen of the Hill was exiled back to Blueville where she and her dragon could no longer kill.

Sir Mike raised his sword and sang praise to the Lord that children and marriage were protected once more. And the kingdom was filled with the children’s laughter, and the red and blue kingdoms lived happily after.

Janet L. Folger is president of Faith2Action: turning people of faith into people of action to WIN the cultural war TOGETHER for life, liberty and the family.

In Janet’s dramatic fairytale, the Queen of Slaughter is Hillary Clinton, Prince Slay-’Em is Rudy Giuliani, the Sheriff of Floppingham is Mitt Romney and Friar Mike is Mike Huckabee. I don’t know how the hell Sir Don-of-the-Wild is.

What is painfully obvious is that Janet is a complete Huckabee devotee. Huckabee is a nice enough man, but he gives every impression that, if elected he will be a “Jesus loves you” style pastor and not, you know, an actual president. I think the last thing we as a country need is another overburdened, shortsighted, god-wielding, and Jesus-complexed man as president. But, I don’t know. “Kumbaya” has a nicer ring to it than “Bomb bomb bomb Iran“.

On becoming an atheist.

Tuesday, November 20th, 2007

I was born and baptized into the Catholic Church. My mother was a devout Catholic. We attended church every Sunday as well as the Stations of the Cross, the extraordinary holiday masses, and the many other types of services. Although I was an altar boy for nearly a decade, I never really had “faith” as it is viewed from a Christian perspective: The Catholic orthodoxy stressed commitment and loyalty to the Church itself.

I first noticed the misguidedness of this dogma when my age group was preparing for the sacrament of confirmation. It was incessantly preached that this ritual marked a mature and decisive commitment to the Church. No longer were we to behave like the teenager we were. Among the confirmees was an assortment of teenagers who, like teenagers, did not take the confirmation process seriously. Yet, much to my dismay at the time, they were confirmed and, except for those holiday masses that everyone attends, they never returned to participate in the weekly drudgery.

In 1994, my family and I moved to Delaware. For some reason I began attending a predominantly Southern Baptist school named Christian Tabernacle Academy. The school and church had an active and boisterous group of youth and I enjoyed singing the catchy I-love-Jesus and we-are-God’s-soldiers hymns during the Monday services. It was a unique and inspiring experience.

However, being Catholic came with an enormous stigma. I was ostracized and bullied by my peer group every school day. I was even condemned to hell twice by a teacher. The history book blamed all of histories miseries on the Catholic Church and never mentioned, for instance, that Martin Luther didn’t like Jews. Over time, my anger at the sheer ridiculousness of my treatment rose and I began to wonder, “Is this what it mean to be a Christian?”

To answer that question, I may have been drawn deep into the Baptist orthodoxy. It was made clear to me that their path was the only path to eternal salvation. The proverbial straw came when I brought in a book on cults to read during my daily free period. First, my classmates became upset and told me that we were not allowed to know the information presented in the book. Second, my teacher-a man who believed that listening to patriotic country music is a Godly endeavor and frequently argued with another teacher who believed that God considers all things secular, including secular music, sinful-confiscated the book. Finally, he gave it to the principal who looked it over and told me that I was never to bring it in again.

I’ll just say that I was a bit peeved. Who was he to tell me that there are some things that I’m not allowed to know? After that, I no longer considered Christianity to be a worthy endeavor. Not only did they argue over ridiculous ideological minutia and actively encourage bullying, they tried to stop me from reading a book. Who does that? And. at that age, even if I had no desire to do something, if I was told “no” I was sure as hell going to do it.

Eventually, my academic pursuit led me to college where I drank a lot and met a few folks who were honest and genuine and others who were largely unimpressive. The honest and genuine folks did not profess a symbiotic relationship with God. They were firmly planted in the humanistic side of intelligentsia. It was the Christian youth who shunned everyone who even slightly disagreed with them.

Eventually, I had a middle-of-the-night revelation that I was no longer Catholic and that I didn’t believe in heaven or hell. After that, I thought, “Well, what now?” Some time later, I understood that I was an atheist and that I was mentally and emotionally free to roam without the specter of eternal damnation on my shoulder. Up until then I had not understood that sin wasn’t my prison-mine was the pursuit of a sinless soul.

I had been taught in Catholic school that a soul is stained by sin much like a white shirt is stained by just about everything. If a soul were to become too stained, I would become physically decrepit and emotionally paralyzed. Only the sacrament of confession could clean the soul. After my conversion, I realized that that is a bunch of hooey. If I can act with free will and am responsible for myself, I’m ultimately accountable to myself.

I had been angry at religion and no one in particular for a long time. I was angry at my treatment, angry at the hypocrisy, and angry that I had no one to talk to about my journey. Unfortunately, my parents were completely unequipped to help me with my dilemmas. When I was in high school, I was involved in something benign that my parents didn’t understand. So, after they talked to some police officers, they forced me to stop participating because they believed that I was literally worshiping Satan. And so, they’ve remained far from my closest confidants and, frankly, I don’t care to burden them with questions of faith.

By the end of my journey I had learned a valuable lesson that has guided me since. All persons of ideology, regardless of denomination, faith, or common denominator, can be abusive, cruel, sadistic, greedy, power hungry, depressed, lonely, detached, and, most notably, wrong. We are all cut from the same cloth. We isolate those of us who need companionship and love when we become so damn attached to an ideology that we forget our mortality and fallibility. Rigid “good versus evil” and “us verses them” dichotomies plague all ideologues. They believe that they have a lock on all that is good and moral and that those people over there in that corner, or in that restaurant, or in that country are evil and amoral. They’ll never understand that that sort of thinking damages and dooms the rest of us. But, hey. They, like all of us, are only human.

Within the miserable mindset of nicotine withdrawal, I contemplate the seeds of a revolution.

Saturday, November 17th, 2007

This post is in response to an email regarding the PBS Nova program “Judgment Day: Intelligent Design On Trial” that I received from my good friend Michael. After watching the program, I was excited and, rightfully so, he questioned my optimism. Specifically, he asks “[H]ow do you think we will avoid war? Who are those of “cool” disposition, and how much of our discourse do they control, as opposed to war hawks and religious fundamentalists? I would like to hear how the U.S.’ current theory of presidential powers prevents one of those of vocal minority to do as he pleases? Does our current theory of presidential power prevent anything?” My answer follows.

After the program, I was excited for three reasons. First, the program was an excellent expose of the underhanded approach that Intelligent Design advocates employ. I found it satisfying that a program finally had the decency to reveal those Christian fundamentalists and absolutists who willingly commit sins against their god in a misguided belief that they have been forced to sin in order to do their almighty’s will.

Second, the program defined science and theory in clear terms and acknowledged that those who would wrest power from a benign group of biologists must muddy the lexical waters in order to claim parity. Hence, in Newspeak, “science” and “theory” are fluid terms and the meanings that have been ascribed by generations of academics have been lost. It’s clear to me that certain sectors in society have long associated and will forever associate the current conception of religion with “good” and the current conception of science with “bad.” So, any program that poignantly exposes this lexical mischief should be celebrated.

Third and finally, the findings prove that an impartial observer, one who is an expert on neither religion nor science but the law, will correctly determine the outcome of the aforementioned debate using a rational and scholarly method. As though a judge should ensure that both parties leave the courtroom fairly content and partially hopeful, one of the chief complaints about Jones’ ruling that Intelligent Design is not science and that it is the “progeny of creationism” is that he goes “too far.” You take these criticisms to heart, I know. Unfortunately, a judgment declaring Intelligent Design science and irreducible complexity valid is the only action about which the Intelligent Design advocates could have experienced even a modicum of contentment.

As for the content, I do agree that, when viewed with an “Intelligent Design has achieved parity” mindset, the program is one-sided. If the judge had ruled that Intelligent Design surpasses evolution as both a science and a theory and the producers had decided to allot equal time to both, Intelligent Design advocates would mindlessly squawk on-and-on about how the equal time subverts the truth and about how “Darwinists” are losers. On the other hand, an honest assessment would conclude that the program’s intended purpose, to explain how the judge reached his decision and to present a summary of the aftermath, was readily achieved.

Now, onto the meat of your email, your invocation of Sam Harris is interesting. I almost fully disagree with his infamous “Science Must Destroy Religion” essay. Religion will exist as long as “misery” and “suffering” reside in our vocabulary. Atheism offers neither hope nor comfort to those who believe that life is truly awful. Aside from offering the wonderful and individually-conceptualized reward of soulful bliss, religion offers a code of conduct that prescribes the actions one must undertake in order to achieve personal satisfaction through the bringing of happiness and safety to others. Current fundamentalists and absolutists passionately believe that misery and suffering will never be eradicated unless secularism and its precepts are eradicated.

In this regard, religion is extremely influential. It is its pinnacle of economic acridity. Thousands of people, who misguidedly believe that their contributions will bestow great blessings upon them, tithe daily. Though I cannot refute Harris’ central thesis that an investment in science will provide more tangible blessings to more people, the placebo effect that is produced by acting upon faith remains valid.

Subsequently and throughout history, the moods and behaviors of a people within a state have been determined by the leaders of the state’s foremost religion. Constantine chose religion in order to consolidate his power amongst his people for this very reason. The encouraging news about this religion-as-institution condition is that Christianity and Islam arose from within. Religion-as-institution naturally produces misery and suffering and its inevitable outcome is the production of its most subversive element–the one that must precede orthodoxical revolution–contra-interpretation.

In this phase of American history, religion-as-institution is, overwhelmingly, the most favored governmental paradigm and, subsequently, “war is peace” is the most favored foreign policy. Soft war (dissemination of misinformation and the beginnings of economic sanctions) with Iran has already begun. And, because, like Constantine, the current President of the United States sees no distinction between the resources of his state, the resources of his will to do good, and the resources of his god, hard war with Iran is likely. Congress and the people lack the will to stop this because that which will be lost by becoming subversive far exceeds that which will be lost by espousing modern jingoistic ideals.

Those who are of a legitimately “cool” disposition will likely arise from within this religion-as-institution fire. From my experience with the Catholic Church, the most caring and personable priests have atheistic tendencies. When the Church causes misery and suffering, those priests who have maintained enough of a distance from the dogma can compensate those who find themselves disenfranchised.

To wit, all I am able to do now is speculate upon those events that will produce a critical mass of those subversive elements necessary for orthodoxical revolution. An external effect such as terrorism does not produce an immediate result. Likewise, an internal effect such as the bad decision that an agent of the state will make in response to an external threat does not produce an immediate result. It is a slow bleed and the vocal minority can only grow over time. I do believe that a hard war with Iran will substantially speed up this process. However, boiling the water too quickly can cause the people to accept a 1% token while the state retains 99% of its former self. Still, it is a loss and, I conclude, let the state expend its resources and continue its self-destruction because that 1% may be the largest return to the people that I will see in my lifetime.

Passion and Politics

Tuesday, July 4th, 2006

Throughout the past 18 years, the Republicans have thoroughly succeeded in embracing three issues: abortion, flag burning, and Christianity. These three issues are supported by three fervently passionate groups who share a common theme of being disfranchised by the Supreme Court. Abortion is considered a privacy issue. Flag burning is protected by the First Amendment. School sponsored prayer and prayer in school have been eradicated.

Because of the Supreme Court decisions, these three groups view themselves as marginalized do-gooders. They are ideologically similar in that each group believes that America is currently on the wrong path and that their legislation is the Pepto for the ills of the nation. This passion unites the membership within these groups. On the other hand, their counterparts do not exist at the same level. There is no fervent “pro-abortion” group (pro-choice is hardly the same), no fervent pro-flag burning group, and no atheistic anti-Christian conspiracy (atheists account for only 3% of the population).

The passion and the unbalance make these issues politically “no lose” platforms. This November, Republican senators will run on anti-abortion, anti-flag burning, and anti-gay marriage platforms and legions of anti-whatever voters will show up and vote Republican. It does not matter if the anti-whatever measure comes to fruition. The Republican senators are nearly assured reelection and “judicial activists” are to blame.

These once marginalized groups (and healthy doses of gerrymandering) have enabled Republicans to retain control of the government for the past six years. Unfortunately, this has led to constant attacks on what we once considered freedoms. For example, Terri Schiavo exercising her state-granted right to die is considered murder. (I will never forget watching coverage of the Schiavo spectacle and witnessing an interview with a young woman who claimed “I have tons of friends in persistent vegetative states.”) The free press has been labeled treasonous. Liberal beliefs have been demonized. Nearly everyday, democrats are called godless terrorist sympathizers and have their deaths advocated. Republican senator (and former doctor) Bill Frist has lied about the effectiveness of contraception on national television.

There are two themes present in the above examples: (1) It is the republicans who encourage and maintain these attacks. (2) In doing so, the republicans control the language that surrounds any debate on these issues. Murderous. Treasonous. Godless. Terrorist. Unworthy to live. This excoriating vocabulary was once considered “fringe” and maintained only by self-loathing politicians. With the advent of the saturating-media and the embracement of the three aforementioned groups, this vocabulary is now commonplace. Republicans have succeeded in conferring mainstream status to fringe and uncompromising elements. The power and the “above the law” lifestyle that Republican politicians currently enjoy is infinitely more important the personal freedoms of the citizenry.

I believe that the freedoms that are readily dismissed by the three aforementioned groups are the core of humanity:

  1. Adults have authority over their bodies.
  2. Adults may express their feelings using nonviolent means.
  3. Adults must be free of laws that preference the orthodoxies of one religion so they may worship any god and practice any religion their soul desires.

Freedom, independence, and autonomy are rights upon which America was founded. So, please, stay out of my sock drawer and have a happy 4th.

< Prev Page123Next Page >