The Christian Wrong - How The Christian Right is Attempting to Transform Public Policy

Further Proof of the Bush Religious Administration

2007-04-15T09:46:00.000-05:00

You want further proof of how the Bush Administration is infiltrating the Religious Right Extremists into our government...at the highest levels within our Justice Department? View the video and read the Op-ed below.

* God bless Bill Maher for reporting on this (click on video link below and take 4 minutes to watch) - http://www.veoh.com/videos/v386320cSz7Mt4c?searchId=1385750823793937407&rank=4

* And God Bless Paul Krugman for reporting on this as well ...(see in bold below) TR

For God’s Sake

By PAUL KRUGMAN Published: April 13, 2007 In 1981, Gary North, a leader of the Christian Reconstructionist movement — the openly theocratic wing of the Christian right — suggested that the movement could achieve power by stealth. “Christians must begin to organize politically within the present party structure,” he wrote, “and they must begin to infiltrate the existing institutional order.”

Today, Regent University, founded by the televangelist Pat Robertson to provide “Christian leadership to change the world,” boasts that it has 150 graduates working in the Bush administration.

Unfortunately for the image of the school, where Mr. Robertson is chancellor and president, the most famous of those graduates is Monica Goodling, a product of the university’s law school. She’s the former top aide to Alberto Gonzales who appears central to the scandal of the fired U.S. attorneys and has declared that she will take the Fifth rather than testify to Congress on the matter.

The infiltration of the federal government by large numbers of people seeking to impose a religious agenda — which is very different from simply being people of faith — is one of the most important stories of the last six years. It’s also a story that tends to go underreported, perhaps because journalists are afraid of sounding like conspiracy theorists.

But this conspiracy is no theory. The official platform of the Texas Republican Party pledges to “dispel the myth of the separation of church and state.” And the Texas Republicans now running the country are doing their best to fulfill that pledge. Kay Cole James, who had extensive connections to the religious right and was the dean of Regent’s government school, was the federal government’s chief personnel officer from 2001 to 2005. (Curious fact: she then took a job with Mitchell Wade, the businessman who bribed Representative Randy “Duke” Cunningham.) And it’s clear that unqualified people were hired throughout the administration because of their religious connections.

For example, The Boston Globe reports on one Regent law school graduate who was interviewed by the Justice Department’s civil rights division. Asked what Supreme Court decision of the past 20 years he most disagreed with, he named the decision to strike down a Texas anti-sodomy law. When he was hired, it was his only job offer. Or consider George Deutsch, the presidential appointee at NASA who told a Web site designer to add the word “theory” after every mention of the Big Bang, to leave open the possibility of “intelligent design by a creator.”

He turned out not to have, as he claimed, a degree from Texas A&M. One measure of just how many Bushies were appointed to promote a religious agenda is how often a Christian right connection surfaces when we learn about a Bush administration scandal.

There’s Ms. Goodling, of course. But did you know that Rachel Paulose, the U.S. attorney in Minnesota — three of whose deputies recently stepped down, reportedly in protest over her management style — is, according to a local news report, in the habit of quoting Bible verses in the office? Or there’s the case of Claude Allen, the presidential aide and former deputy secretary of health and human services, who stepped down after being investigated for petty theft. Most press reports, though they mentioned Mr. Allen’s faith, failed to convey the fact that he built his career as a man of the hard-line Christian right.

And there’s another thing most reporting fails to convey: the sheer extremism of these people. You see, Regent isn’t a religious university the way Loyola or Yeshiva are religious universities. It’s run by someone whose first reaction to 9/11 was to brand it God’s punishment for America’s sins. Two days after the terrorist attacks, Mr. Robertson held a conversation with Jerry Falwell on Mr. Robertson’s TV show “The 700 Club.” Mr. Falwell laid blame for the attack at the feet of “the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians,” not to mention the A.C.L.U. and People for the American Way. “Well, I totally concur,” said Mr. Robertson.

The Bush administration’s implosion clearly represents a setback for the Christian right’s strategy of infiltration. But it would be wildly premature to declare the danger over. This is a movement that has shown great resilience over the years. It will surely find new champions. Next week Rudy Giuliani will be speaking at Regent’s Executive Leadership Series.

Religious Right's Credibility Continues to Lessen

2006-12-17T09:42:00.000-06:00

The Religious Right's credibility, support and political 'puppets' are lessening...Frank Rich's op-ed in the NY Times today captures the decline of the Religous Right and its affect on politics. How sweeit it is.

Op-Ed Columnist
Mary Cheney’s Bundle of Joy
By FRANK RICH
Published: December 17, 2006

IT’S not the least of John McCain’s political talents that he comes across as a paragon of straight talk even when he isn’t talking straight. So it was a surprise to see him reduced to near-stammering on ABC’s “This Week” two Sundays after the election. The subject that brought him low was the elephant in the elephants’ room, or perhaps we should say in their closet: homosexuality.
Skip to next paragraph

Enlarge This Image
Senator McCain is no bigot, and his only goal was to change the subject as quickly as possible. He kept repeating two safe talking points for dear life: he opposes same-sex marriage (as does every major presidential aspirant in both parties) and he is opposed to discrimination. But because he had endorsed a broadly written Arizona ballot initiative that could have been used to discriminate against unmarried domestic partners, George Stephanopoulos wouldn’t let him off the hook.

“Are you against civil unions for gay couples?” he asked the senator, who replied, “No, I’m not.” When Mr. Stephanopoulos reiterated the question seconds later — “So you’re for civil unions?” — Mr. McCain answered, “No.” In other words, he was not against civil unions before he was against them. His gaffe was reminiscent of a similar appearance on Mr. Stephanopoulos’s show in 2004 by Bill Frist, a Harvard-trained doctor who refused to criticize a federal abstinence program that catered to the religious right by spreading the canard that sweat and tears could transmit AIDS.

Senator Frist is now a lame duck, and his brand of pandering, typified by his errant upbeat diagnosis of the brain-dead Terri Schiavo’s condition, is following him to political Valhalla. The 2006 midterms left Karl Rove’s supposedly foolproof playbook in tatters. It was hard for the Republicans to deal the gay card one more time after the Mark Foley and Ted Haggard scandals revealed that today’s conservative hierarchy is much like Roy Cohn’s milieu in “Angels in America,” minus the wit and pathos.

This time around, ballot initiatives banning same-sex marriage drew markedly less support than in 2004; the draconian one endorsed by Mr. McCain in Arizona was voted down altogether. Two national politicians who had kowtowed egregiously to their party’s fringe, Rick Santorum and George Allen, were defeated, joining their ideological fellow travelers Tom DeLay and Ralph Reed in the political junkyard. To further confirm the inexorable march of social history, the only Christmas season miracle to lift the beleaguered Bush administration this year has been the announcement that Mary Cheney, the vice president’s gay daughter, is pregnant. Her growing family is the living rejoinder to those in her father’s party who would relegate gay American couples and their children to second-class legal or human status.

Yet not even these political realities have entirely broken the knee-jerk habit of some 2008 Republican presidential hopefuls to woo homophobes. Mitt Romney, the Republican Massachusetts governor, was caught in yet another embarrassing example of his party’s hypocrisy last week. In a newly unearthed letter courting the gay Log Cabin Republicans during his unsuccessful 1994 Senate race, he promised to “do better” than even Ted Kennedy in making “equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern.” Given that Mr. Romney has been making opposition to same-sex marriage his political calling card this year, his ideological bisexuality looks as foolish in its G-rated way as that of Mr. Haggard, the evangelical leader who was caught keeping time with a male prostitute.

There’s no evidence that Mr. Romney’s rightward move on gay civil rights and abortion (about which he acknowledges his flip-flop) has helped him politically. Or that Mr. McCain has benefited from a similar sea change that has taken him from accurately labeling Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson “agents of intolerance” in 2000 to appearing at Mr. Falwell’s Liberty University this year. A Washington Post-ABC News poll last week found that among Republican voters, Rudy Giuliani, an unabashed liberal on gay civil rights and abortion, leads Mr. McCain 34 percent to 26 percent. Mr. Romney brought up the rear, at 5 percent. That does, however, put him nominally ahead of another presidential wannabe, the religious-right favorite Sam Brownback, who has held up a federal judicial nomination in the Senate because the nominee had attended a lesbian neighbor’s commitment ceremony.

For those who are cheered by seeing the Rovian politics of wedge issues start to fade, the good news does not end with the growing evidence that gay-baiting may do candidates who traffic in it more harm than good. It’s not only centrist American voters of both parties who reject divisive demagoguery but also conservative evangelicals themselves. Some of them are at last standing up to the extremists in their own camp.

No one more dramatically so, perhaps, than Rick Warren, the Orange County, Calif., megachurch leader and best-selling author of “The Purpose Driven Life.” He has adopted AIDS in Africa as a signature crusade, and invited Barack Obama to join the usual suspects, including Senator Brownback, to address his World AIDS Day conference on the issue. This prompted predictable outrage from the right because of Mr. Obama’s liberal politics, especially on abortion. One radio host, Kevin McCullough, demonized the Democrat for pursuing “inhumane, sick and sinister evil” as a legislator. An open letter sponsored by 18 “pro-life” groups protested the invitation, also citing Mr. Obama’s “evil.” But Mr. Warren didn’t blink.

Among those defending the invitation was David Kuo, the former deputy director of the Bush White House’s Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. In a book, “Tempting Faith,” as well as in interviews and on his blog, the heretical Mr. Kuo has become a tough conservative critic of the corruption of religion by politicians and religious-right leaders who are guilty of “taking Jesus and reducing him to some precinct captain, to some get-out-the-vote guy.” Of those “family” groups who criticized Mr. Obama’s appearance at the AIDS conference, Mr. Kuo wrote, “Are they so blind and possessed with such a narrow definition of life that they can think of life only in utero?” The answer, of course, is yes. The Christian Coalition parted ways with its new president-elect, a Florida megachurch pastor, Joel Hunter, after he announced that he would take on bigger issues like poverty and global warming.

But it is leaders like Mr. Hunter and Mr. Warren who are in ascendance. Even the Rev. Richard Cizik, vice president for governmental affairs at Mr. Haggard’s former perch, the National Association of Evangelicals, has joined a number of his peers in taking up the cause of the environment, putting him at odds with the Bush administration. Such religious leaders may not have given up their opposition to abortion or gay marriage, but they have more pressing priorities. They seem to have figured out, as Mr. Kuo has said, that “politicians use Christian voters for their money and for their votes” and give them little in return except a reputation for bigotry and heartless opposition to the lifesaving potential of stem-cell research.

The axis of family jihadis — Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, the American Family Association — is feeling the heat; its positions get more extreme by the day. A Concerned Women for America mouthpiece called Mary Cheney’s pregnancy “unconscionable,” condemning her for having “injured her child” and “acted in a way that denies everything that the Bush administration has worked for.” (That last statement, thankfully, is true.) This overkill reeks of desperation. So does these zealots’ recent assault on the supposedly feminizing “medical” properties of soy baby formula (which deserves the “blame for today’s rise in homosexuality,” according to the chairman of Megashift Ministries), and penguins.

Yes, penguins. These fine birds have now joined the Teletubbies and SpongeBob SquarePants in the pantheon of cuddly secret agents for “the gay agenda.” Schools are being forced to defend “And Tango Makes Three,” an acclaimed children’s picture book based on the true story of two Central Park Zoo male penguins who adopted a chick from a fertilized egg. The hit penguin movie “Happy Feet” has been outed for an “anti-religious bias” and its “endorsement of gay identity” by Michael Medved, the commentator who sets the tone for the religious right’s strictly enforced code of cultural political correctness.

Such censoriousness is increasingly the stuff of comedy. So are politicians of all stripes who advertise their faith. A liberal like Howard Dean is no more credible talking about the Bible (during the 2004 campaign he said his favorite book in the New Testament was Job) than twice-married candidates like Mr. McCain are persuasive at pledging allegiance to “the sanctity of marriage.”

For all the skeptical theories about the Obama boomlet — or real boom, we don’t know yet — no one doubts that his language about faith is his own, not a crib sheet provided by a conservative evangelical preacher or a liberal political consultant on “values.” That’s why a Democrat from Chicago whose voting record is to the left of Hillary Clinton’s received the same standing ovation from the thousands at Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church that he did from his own party’s throngs in New Hampshire. After a quarter-century of watching politicians from both parties exploit religion for partisan and often mean-spirited political gain, voters on all sides of this country’s culture wars are finally in the market for something new.

"New Rules" and The Christian Wrong

2006-11-11T10:25:00.000-06:00

From Bill Maher's HBO Series - 'New Rules'

Which Brings me to our final New Rule of the evening, there is no devil so stop blaming your screw-ups on him. One of the biggest Evangelical leaders in America, the Reverend Ted Haggard, was out-ed for drugs and gay sex with a male prostitute. Or as Fox news reported it, 'John Kerry hates our troops.' Now this was big news because Reverend Haggard was frequently at the White House and a big fan of President Bush, as Haggard described as tan, firm and supple where it counts. And as President as the National Association of Evangelicals, Haggard presided over 45,000 Evangelical churches and was a 'rock star' for the Christian Right...and like a rock star, he was getting his freak-on a lot.

Sometimes the sodomy left him so exhausted he could barely use idiotical fairy tales to get people's money. Yes, Reverend Haggard was living a shameful double-life (sarcastic tone), but hey you can't keep being an Evangelist a secret forever.

Now I bring this up, because I believe it connects deeply to the Republican rout this week. They lost because they came to represent the opposite of everything they were supposed to be. Competent? No. Spendthrift? Hardly. Ethical? Rarely. The last straw was when the party that was supposed to be carrying the water for the gay bashers turned out to be a closet of repressed screamers! Who knew that when the Republicans got in bed with the Christian Right, it would be inside of a stall inside a truck stop restroom along the New Jersey turnpike??

Reverend's Haggard's plight led many to ask "Is it genetic? Can a man actually be born a hypocrite??" Because Ted Haggard was the leader of a mega-church, and the mega-churches are presided over the same skeevy door-to-door bible salesman that we have always had but just in an age of better technology. But they are selling the same thing -- fear. Fear - to keep you in line and to get your money.

And it's not a coincidence the Republican Party has in recent years operated in the same way. It's also no coincidence that people with too much faith simply do not see reality. Bush not seeing Iraq for what it is, is not much different from the way Reverend Haggard's followers still think he is not gay. I am not kidding - in there world, there are no gay people. There are just straight people who are sinning. They don't want to do it but the devil makes them. The devil targets people like Reverend Ted - that's how it happens in their world - the devil got a hold of Reverend Ted and Ted said "get thee behind me Satan...and put it in gently." Come on, the man was anointing people with astro-glide. He was preaching fire and rhinestone...(whisper) he was gay.

In conclusion, I would just like to say on this historic week that the legacy of the religious right will be despite their holy pretenses, they made politics not cleaner but dirtier! Because when you are so sure you are right, you wind-up acting so wrong.

And as for Reverend Ted himself, the good news is that he is in full "recovery." And says he will be receiving both spiritual advice and guidance. The bad news is it's from Andy Dick.

Sunday, September 24, 2006 - Christian Right's Strategy on Mid-Term Elections and Preparing Children to Fight a Holy War

2006-09-24T12:20:00.000-05:00

Below are two articles as reported in the Minneapolis Star Tribune. The first article is on the Christian Right's strategy of motivating its conservative base to vote in the upcoming mid-term elections. The second article is on children's camps called "Jesus Camps" which teach children to prepare for a Holy War against all other religions, especially Islam.

Key GOP voter bloc not singing party's praises

Republicans hoping for a strong turnout of Christian conservatives have reason for concern, as these "values voters" are feeling betrayed.

To the daunting challenges facing Republicans in this fall's midterm elections, add another: angry "values voters" who say they feel used and abandoned.

"We put these people in power in 2004," said Sue Means, a home-school activist from suburban Pittsburgh. "I really expected more. I'm disappointed."
Means said she sees little but broken promises from the Republican-led Congress: the failed federal marriage amendment, waffling on stem-cell research, no new limits on abortion. And she is among many other like-minded voters who were widely credited in 2004 with helping pass same-sex marriage bans in 11 states and being crucial to President Bush's reelection.

"There are a lot of people that are somewhat disillusioned and have a feeling of betrayal for having worked so hard and have Republicans be so unresponsive," said James Dobson, chairman of the national group Focus on the Family.

As part of a campaign to rouse Christian conservative voters, Dobson is coming to the Twin Cities next week to speak. His group also is working with ministers around Minnesota to mobilize in time to influence the Nov. 7 elections.

Republicans counting on a strong turnout of Christian conservatives at the polls may have other reasons for concern. Midterm elections often do not excite the masses. A signature issue, such as a ban on same-sex marriage, is on the ballot in fewer states this year. And the federal government has promised to crack down on church-based partisan politicking after complaints about such behavior in 2004, which could suppress religious leaders' involvement and dampen turnout.

Dobson and others are working hard to counter that possibility, though they acknowledge their disappointment. "Whether Republicans deserve the power they were given, the alternatives are downright frightening," Dobson told more than 3,000 attendees at a recent "Stand for the Family" rally in Pittsburgh.

The event was the first of three designed to energize Christian conservative voters. All three are in states that have hotly contested Senate races: Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Tennessee.
The Pittsburgh event was part political rally, part church revival. Held at a downtown hockey arena, it featured entertainment by the Christian pop group the Sounds of Liberty. An enormous U.S. flag hung behind the speakers, who included Dobson, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council and Gary Bauer of American Values. All warned of threats to religious liberty, to marriage and, as Perkins put it, of "our children being indoctrinated with homosexuality in our public schools."

All the speakers stressed that they wouldn't tell people how to vote.

But if a politician shares his principles on issues from judges to marriage "and is committed to the God of the universe, and from my perspective, Jesus Christ his only begotten son ... it would be a sin not to go to the polls and vote for him or her," Dobson said.

Similar efforts are underway across the country. In Missouri, home of another tight Senate race, a ballot initiative on stem-cell research has energized social conservative voters. There, Texas evangelist Rick Scarborough has led five church rallies, with two more scheduled, to rev up voters to oppose the initiative. In Washington last week, the Family Research Council's Values Voter Summit included a training session titled "Getting Church Voters to the Polls."
And gay-marriage bans are on the ballots in eight states this year, including three that have close Senate races: Arizona, Virginia and Tennessee.

"When you have a marriage amendment on the ballot, it makes it that much easier" to motivate conservative Christian voters, said John Green, a senior fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. "And on balance, they'll vote for the Republican candidates in those states."

Some say such efforts go too far. Americans United for Separation of Church and State has sent 117,000 letters to pastors of churches in 11 states targeted for action by conservative Christian leaders. The letter reminded pastors that Internal Revenue Service regulations prohibit churches from endorsing or opposing specific candidates and from intervening directly in partisan campaigns.

Doing so could jeopardize a church's tax-exempt status and lead to fines, the group warned. Even voter guides can be a thinly veiled partisan effort, the letter said. Earlier this year, the IRS reported that, in the 2004 election cycle, it investigated 47 allegations of improper church politicking; 37 were given warnings or fined, and a few cases remain outstanding.

"Houses of worship must not become cogs in someone's political machine," said the Rev. Barry Lynn, Americans United's executive director. He accused Dobson and others of trying "to build a kind of religious Tammany Hall."I don't set the Senate races and I don't set the referenda," Scarborough responded. "If that has an impact on Senate races, so be it," the Texas evangelist said. "I hope and pray that pro-life senators get elected. That's no secret."

Allen Hertzke, a professor at the University of Oklahoma who studies evangelical Christians, said the IRS focus could suppress voter turnout. Given the array of obstacles, it wouldn't be surprising if Christian conservatives show less clout in 2006, Green said.

"But we shouldn't underestimate their ability to reach their constituencies," Green added. "A lot of this happens through church networks. Unless you happen to be in the network, you wouldn't notice it."

At 'Jesus Camp,' fired-up kids in
combat gear prep for holy war
Nick Coleman, Star Tribune

Holy war is coming. Thank you, Jesus.

That's the tone of a disturbing new documentary called "Jesus Camp." The film, by Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady, takes us to a Bible camp called "Kids On Fire," where the children of evangelical Christians are indoctrinated in a militant faith that sees nonbelievers as opponents and secular government as an enemy to overthrow.

I saw a preview of the movie last week (it opens at the Lagoon Cinema in Uptown on Oct. 6, if the Rapture hasn't come by then). And I will leave the film criticism to others. But "Jesus Camp" shows what may be in store for us when millions reject the idea of separation of church and state and want to create a Christian State ready to do battle for Christ.
We get kids in combat fatigues, their faces painted in camouflage colors, who sob, speak in tongues and pray for Jesus to re-make America in his image. Or, more accurately, to re-make it according to the plan of the adults who are turning these children into good little Evangelical mujahaddin.
Pumped up in the Lord, the kids grab hammers and smash crockery labeled "government," sending the shards flying while adult leaders urge them to "give up your lives for Jesus" and "break the power of our enemies in government."

It's not clear who the enemies are, but we know who they aren't: There's a scene showing the kids praying before a cardboard cut-out of President George W. Bush.

"They're so usable," Camp Pastor Becky Fischer says, without irony. "Today is a fulfillment of prophecy," she tells the kids. "We've got to stand up and take back the land. This is a generation of purity and righteousness and holiness, and you are going to serve the Lord all the days of your life."

The Lord and George Bush, too. It is a powerful team.

If you wonder why I am talking about a film about people in the Bible Belt, you haven't been paying attention. "Jesus Camp" (go to jesuscampthemovie.com to learn more) is about a North Dakota camp attended by kids from throughout the country.

"They start taking control in small slices," says the only person in the film who raises warning flags, a liberal talk-radio host named Mike Papantonio. "How anybody can say, 'This doesn't affect me,' is completely absurd."Jesus Camp" is not an "attack" film. In fact, Rev. Fischer is enthusiastic about its portrayal of her efforts. But the movie will give nonevangelicals a sobering glimpse of how a potent mix of politics and religion is being used to restore America to the kind of country "it was meant to be." Or on making it into a place ruled by zealots who have no tolerance for religious diversity and who believe (in Fischer's words) that democracy doesn't work.

"If the Evangelicals vote, they determine the election," one mega-church pastor brags, smugly. "It's a fabulous life."

It's also a tone-deaf life.

When a precocious 9-year-old girl, on fire for the Lord, accosts some elderly black men and asks what will happen to them when they die, they answer they expect to go to Heaven. Rattled, and without a reason to preach, she walks away and mutters: "I think they were Muslims."
Muslims are the enemy, along with liberals and the shadowy forces of secularism and humanism who want us to believe in evolution and the Big Bang.

Holy War is coming, TV preacher Pat Robertson said last week, while Muslims protested against Pope Benedict and "Christian" lobbying groups urged Congress to permit the use of torture. All while here, on the prairie, Christian groups were urging voters to "make wise Biblical choices about how to vote in November."

Well, Christians, maybe it's time to pray for peace and to vote not just on Biblical principles, but specifically on New Testament principles, such as the Sermon on the Mount, when Jesus said, "Blessed are the peacemakers."

But that, of course, was back in the days before he started wearing camouflage.

Nick Coleman • ncoleman@startribune.com

Current Policies of the Republican Party and Christian Right

2005-11-26T09:40:00.000-06:00

Republican Budget Bill Savages the Poor
By Max J. Castro
Progreso Weekly 24-30 November 2005 Edition

They are at it again. Anyone who hoped that the images of the aftermath of hurricane Katrina, which made the extent of squalor in America visible and dramatized the life-and-death consequences of inequality, would stir the conscience of our ruling party was wrong. Dead wrong. Last week, after suffering the embarrassing defeat of its main budget proposal, the Republican leadership in the US House of Representatives managed to push through $50 billion in cuts to "domestic discretionary spending." That is code for programs such as food stamps, health care for poor children, the indigent elderly and the disabled, student loans, and foster care. These are the last remnants of the frayed, flimsy safety net that this society - the least generous of any rich nation toward its disadvantaged - provides the most vulnerable among us.

Who the targets of the spending reductions are is crystal clear. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (http://www.cbpp.org/) reports that the GOP bill just approved would "deny food stamps to more than 220,000 low-income people each month by 2008, and would cut basic food aid by nearly $700 million over five years." Perhaps anticipating that many of the poor might get sick because of malnutrition, the House measure would also "allow states to impose substantial new co-payment and premium fees on millions of low-income Medicaid beneficiaries, and to scale back substantially the health care services that the Medicaid program provides." What do Republicans have against poor people that they so persistently and savagely seek to punish them even in the face of the kind of evident suffering revealed by the catastrophic events of New Orleans?

The question is more vexing when one considers that the vast majority of Republican members of Congress proclaim themselves staunch Christians, yet their policy choices consistently contradict fundamental tenets of the faith. In 1986, for example, the US Catholic bishops proclaimed: "As individuals and as a nation ... we are called to make a fundamental 'option for the poor.' The obligation to evaluate social and economic activity from the viewpoint of the poor and the powerless arises from the radical command to love one's neighbor as one's self. Those who are marginalized and whose rights are denied have privileged claims if society is to provide justice for all. This obligation is deeply rooted in Christian belief." William Quigley, professor of law at Loyola University in New Orleans, further defines this option for the poor, which the bishops consider to be deeply rooted in Christian, and not merely Catholic, belief: "The preferential option for the poor means several things: maintaining solidarity with the poor and powerless; viewing and evaluating all economic, political and institutional action and institutions from the perspective of the poor; and having an ongoing commitment to action on behalf of justice."

The 'Christian' Republicans who run Congress and the 'Christian' president who sits in the White House consistently turn this fundamental Christian principle exactly on its head. They do so not only through budget cuts that savage the poor but also through lavish tax cuts that benefit the rich. If the Republicans wanted to reduce the bloated federal budget deficit - the reason Republicans claim we need to cut domestic programs - they could do so in a more effective way and one that would be consistent with their professed faith. Canceling two tax cuts for the rich slated to take effect January 1, 2006 alone would save about $70 billion. That's 40 percent more than would be saved by gutting social programs.

Instead, in order to give the greediest a huge New Year's gift, the Republicans are willing to strike a devastating blow against the neediest and add $20 billion to the deficit. So much for fiscal Christian charity and fiscal conservatism! What makes the situation even more egregious is the extent to which the Bush tax policy already showers the rich with colossal gifts. Once more, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: "The highly respected Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center reports that households with incomes of more than $1 million a year - the richest 0.2 percent of the US population - already are receiving tax cuts averaging $103,000 this year, before these two new tax cuts take effect. The Tax Policy Center finds that the two tax-cut measures in question will give these 'millionaires' nearly another $20,000 a year in tax cuts, when the measures are phased in fully." In Rerum Novarum, Pope Leo XIII asserted that "rights must be religiously respected wherever they are found ... Still, when there is question of protecting the rights of individuals, the poor and helpless have a claim to special consideration."

Why is Rep. Rick Santorum, that paragon of Catholic virtue, not resigning from the Republican Party? Perhaps Santorum and other 'Christians' reason that since the rich are as likely to attain heaven as a camel to enter the eye of a needle, it is the Christian duty of the Republican Party to provide them the Kingdom of Heaven here on Earth. The latest Republican attack against the "poor and defenseless" was so cruel and brazen that 14 Republicans withstood withering pressure from their party's leaders in the House and voted their conscience in opposition. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, that champion of Little Havana's viejitos, was not among them. What business does Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, whose district includes few millionaires but many poor senior citizens and children who will be the main victims of the perverted priorities embodied in the Republican budget, have voting for these shameful cuts?

George Bush and the 'new' Republican Party - Current and Future Repurcussions

2005-11-01T08:02:00.000-06:00

This posting was sent to me by a friend and colleague who voiced how troublesome our country has become in the last four years and 10 months...

Among all of my closest friends, I am (I believe) the only one who is a registered Democrat (and always have been). Referring to those friend of mine, every one of them, including my wife were born, raised and have for half a century plus voted (almost) party line Republican. Those friends (my wife included), one would say are devoted Republicans…true party loyalists.

Until now.

Building up to it, this past weekend, my wife and some of our friends said, they can’t wait until the next election and each one thereafter. ‘Cause they plan on casting their ballets for every Democrat listed. They said they are doing to vote the Democratic party line as their intent is to remove every Republican incumbent that have overtly or not supported our sitting Crusader President, GWB. I was amazed to hear that…or was I?

In fact, my wife said (as well as a few other friends), they intend to re-register as a Democrats so they can vote in the Democratic primary. Knowing my wife (and some of these friends of ours)…I was equality shocked to hear that too…or was I?

We as Americans are in a very very sad state of affairs under this current administration and its leadership. This is not only my personal observation…just ask around those Dems and Reps you know. They will agree, America is on a course of extreme disarray. Granted some of this chaos is in deed a carry over from the previous Clinton administration (no doubt some bad decision were made during those times too), though to a far less extent. But Crusader GW Bush (and his Knights in Dull Black Amour) sitting around the Oval Table have unquestionably set a new (sub) standard for America at each and every aspect of the American way. They are consciously and non-consciously turning the American Dream into an American Nightmare…and making significant headway (sadly) with a set of extreme-right values that are not in the best interest for (all of) America…regardless of what the orate.

It has been said: “…the times make the President…the President does not make the times.” Crusader Bush has proven that truism to be false. I am appalled, I am enraged, I am deeply concerned…I am down right embarrassed as to what this current administration under the management of Crusader Bush and his jousting Knights have been trying to do and in some instances (sadly) succeeded to accomplish…to underhandedly undermine and manipulate the greatness of America in becoming a greatly divided more than ever.

We are faced with a religious right wing fanatic in the Oval Office for another three plus years. One that believes he was destined by God to be where he is. ((The fact he thinks that is one thing…the fact he actually said it in public…(as the president) astonishes me and others). With that notice and his statement that we are on a Crusade against the evil empire abroad (he actually stated that too), that with all the misguided rational he has governed by and supported by his loyal fanatical colleagues he has so craftily surrounded himself with…perhaps the enemy is not out there after all…perhaps its within.

Just look at what has gone on this past week. Need I say more.

I think, it’s the first time in 61 years (and as an VN Vet, enlisted) that I have real doubts about the short and long term future of America. I’m genuinely saddened. On this course, what will I/we be leaving my/our grandchildren? What will history say about this generation I/we am part of? This administration almost makes the Nixon years look great. I am deeply concerned. Crusader Bush, as the CEO of America, perhaps he should be firing some of his Knights in Dull Black amour and send them for a good flogging. Show the American people that our, America’s best interests far out weights GW’s and his cohorts personal friendships, business and religious interests. This council sitting around the Oval Table in that Oval Office has caused a far greater mistrust than anyone can imagine has American’s and our foreign allies. Thanks GW, good job. And Crusader GW has accomplished another unique feat, he has in four years and ten months, turn the symbolic White House, into a Knightly Grey House of religious fanatical war mongers from the extreme Christian Right with a Crusade mentality and mission…to screw everything up that our Founding Father envisioned and formulated 229 years ago…all in four years and ten months. Good going Crusader GW Bush.

A sick thought huh.
Anonymous

Topic of the Week - Intelligent Design Debate

2005-08-20T09:10:00.000-05:00

As this so called debate on intelligent design between The Christian Right and the rest of America continues, it must be put in perspective. There is no debate when it comes to public education - intelligent design has no place in our public school system, especially when compared to the theory of evolution where The Christian Right are trying to categorize and place it in Science class.

The exchange between an advocate of intelligent design and myself (below) is an example between the two sides of this so called debate. I will let you decide if you think the Christian Creationist theory, masked as intelligent design, should be incorporated into our public school systems. Lookout for this issue in next year's elections - it will be an initiative that will be included on a number of state's ballots. The over-arching agenda here is that The Christian Right is attempting, once again, to incorporate their religious belief system into our public policies and public education system.

Of course, to protect the identity of this exchange, I have removed the names involved and replaced with PWB and intelligent design (ID):

PWB: With respect to my comments prior on your conservative agenda, your belief of 'Intelligent Design' contrasting/comparing to the science of evolution and how it should be taught in our public school system within science/biology class is an example of your attempt to incorporate your religious beliefs into our public education system.

ID : Yes, absolutely. intelligent design should be offered as another explanation for our existence - not sourced from any single religion or article of faith, but in general. If any religion basis for it (like the Bible) is sited, all known religious articles of faith should be shared equally. Evolution is based on faith. I defy you to come up with one piece of sound evidence for evolution from one species to another (not adaptation among like species – that is an entirely different matter).

PWB: Evolution is based on faith? This is an incorrect statement, and I think you realize this, don't you? Evolution is based on the continual focus on proving this theory with a fact based approach.

Let me ask you, why should intelligent design be offered in our public school systems? What is your true intent? I think if you were hontest with me, and others, you would acknowledge your true intention is to incorporate your Christian belief system into our public school system.

Science is based on the continual focus on facts - testing and retesting hypothesis until this 'theory' can be explained in a logical, rational way. Evolution is a science that continually attempts to prove this theory. Intelligent design, on the other hand, is based on hypothesis only - only your faith (beliefs) back it up. Therein lies the difference - there is no continual attempt, with a fact based focus, to explain and support this rational.

The other part of this issue, putting your general focus on all religions, is that the Christian Right, in general, is leading this agenda regarding intelligent design to have Christianity's belief in Creationism taught in our public schools - you know that, I know that and those who oppose their agenda know this. The Discovery Institute, the largest leading political conservative activitist organization whose primary focus is on challenging Evolution as part of the public educational curriculum, is funded by a number of Christian evangelical organizations.

Also, the last and extended part of this issue aligned with your intelligent design rational is that your 'faith' determines as fact that there is an afterlife (again, no actual facts prove that an afterlife for humans exist). Evolution is focused on the past and attempting to prove this theory, over and over again. Intelligent design is focused on the past but also aligned and supports a future 'faith-based' religious belief...again without any attempt to prove any factual base details.

ID: Then let each individual decide for themselves. Don’t you see the hypocrisy of the current state?? The Government is governing our beliefs and our children's beliefs with only teaching evolution.

PWB: Herein lies the difference between us on my stance of a distinct line between church and state and your stance that melding religious and 'faith-based' beliefs into our public policies, public educational systems and public forums are OK. I don't. Evolution is not based on religion, intelligent design is.

Your belief that 'faith' is OK to incorporate into our public policies and public forum respective of your Christianity beliefs is most disconcerning - faith/religion are the same when you use in this context...your foundation of Christianity as your basis to support these beliefs.

ID: You’re off base on this. I’ve always said that our country and constitution was formed based on “faith” (not religion) from the beginning. I’m not trying to incorporate anything, you and the left are trying to snuff it out through an activist judicial system.

PWB: Once again, whose 'faith?" Lets be honest here - you are talking about your stance that our country was founded upon Christian faith, your biblical Christian beliefs. You are trying to incorporate your biblical belief into our public policies - period. Once again, herein lies the difference between us when it comes to separation of church and state - I don't believe religious beliefs should govern our public policies. You do. This issue, intelligent design, is just one example.

ID: I believe this is why we are split so far – when you consider for a moment, that there is a possibility that we are not an accident (that this is another explanation other than evolution), then you and the left will give pause to how this is a life issue.

PWB: This is your religious belief again talking here. Your belief that we are not an 'accident.' Truly, your faith cannot support a fact based approach in proving your theory of creation (lets call it what is is rather than intelligent design, huh?). I acknowledge and respect your belief that life is not an accident, that there is a divine creator but many would appreciate it if you keep this belief personal and/or within your family or church... and try not to incorporate it into our public policies. Is evolution proven as 100 percent fact? Of course not. But there is a fact-based approach.

ID: No, they are teaching a theory, evolution, (and their faith in it) as fact. Why are you and the left afraid of letting our children have all the information and coming to their own conclusions?? This is one of the issues I point to when I allude to the “conflicted left”. The 'conflicted left' is indeed conflicted when it comes to explaining and rationalizing 'faith.'

PWB: Why afraid of letting intelligent design be taught in our public school system? Because there is not a fact-based agenda - it is based on religious faith. And those that are able to detach themselves from their religious faith and analyze the overarching picture on 'faith' know that there is no right and wrong answer, there is no right and wrong religion, there is no right and wrong explanation. The 'conflicted left' is indeed conflicted on this issue...as they could or should be because they are aware there is no right and wrong belief system and they tend to respect each individual's belief system, whatever that belief may be.

I ask again, why do you Christian fundamentalists want to incorporate your beliefs into our public policies, public forums and public educational systems? Because you believe that your one faith is the only true belief and existence for this country and world on a whole. This is most dangerous - please review historical evidence and how belief movements attempting to incorporate one belief system nationally can seep out of control. This is what the 'conflicted left' is concerned of...and what our founding fathers were concerned of when they drew a distinct line between church and state within our public policies and public education.

End

If you have an opinion on the intelligent design agenda, please click below and post your comments.

Topic of the Week - The Bush Regime and the Iraq Invasion - Lies, Deceit & Power

2005-08-04T06:44:00.000-05:00

This article by Thom Hartman is the most insightful article I have read on the over-arching intention of the Bush regime in why they invaded Iraq. I encourage each of you to read it, and take note of Hartman's support of this intent, as well as read in between the lines of what we have experienced since January 20, 2001 when George Bush took office.

This article was passed on to me by a family member who has an intellect and insight I most admire. Thank you.

If after reading this article, you have comments or alternative viewpoints, click on 'Post your Comments' at the end of the article.

They Died So Republicans Could Take the Senate
by Thom Hartmann

Richard Nixon authorized the Watergate burglary and subsequent cover-up to advance his own political ambitions. Because Nixon's lies were done for the craven purpose of getting and holding political power, his lies - in the minds of the majority of the members of Congress - were elevated to the level of impeachable "high crimes and misdemeanors."

Bill Clinton had sex in the White House with Monica Lewinsky, but Congress concluded he'd lied about it to maintain political power. Another impeachable crime.

The real scandal of the Downing Street Memos, with the greatest potential to leave the Bush presidency in permanent disgrace, is their implication that lies may have been put forward to help Bush, Republicans, and Blair politically. If Bush lied to gain and keep political power, precedent suggests he and his collaborators in the administration may even be vulnerable to impeachment.

Conservatives say the Bush claims of WMD and "mushroom clouds" were a "lie of ignorance." Condoleezza Rice periodically does the talk-show circuit and repeats the "lie of ignorance" myth. "The entire world thought Saddam had WMD," she and other Bush representatives suggest over and over again. "We had bad intelligence."

This is a lie to cover up a more damaging lie. "The entire world" was, in fact, watching and listening to Hans Blix, who was telling us that he couldn't find any evidence of WMD - or any other sort of threat - in Iraq. Most of our allies were convinced that Saddam did not have WMD, or that if he did have some small stockpiles left they were so insignificant and degraded that they were irrelevant. This is why the only permanent member of the UN Security Council to join us in attacking Iraq was Blair's UK: China, France, and Russia didn't believe Iraq represented a threat to them, to us, or even to its neighbors.

Nonetheless, Bush keeps trying to push this lie-to-cover-up-a-lie. In his June 19, 2005 radio address, he suggested that the Saudis who flew the planes into the World Trade Center were actually Iraqis. "We went to war because we were attacked," he said, hoping Americans' memories are short.

US media pundits, knowing the "WMD lie" and the "Saddam attacked us" lie for what they are, mostly suggest that Bush's use of WMD and terrorism to justify invading Iraq was a "lie of convenience." The implicit assumption is that Bush did this because of a "greater good"; that even though he lied, he was doing so to advance America's interests. This helps pundits to feel like they're part of an in-crowd elite who know what's best for America, even if they can't tell the children - er - citizens.

The "lie of convenience" is based on the neocon argument that the US needed a "footprint" in the Middle East to both secure our oil supplies and provide military security to Israel. But it ignores the many nations in the region where we now have military bases (some huge), the power and ability of our navy, and the power of Israel's military. And it doesn't explain how our getting bogged down in Iraq could possibly advance our interests at home or around the world.

Often included in the "lie of convenience" mix is the PNAC suggestion that for America to be safe, we must forcefully project military power all over the world and hold decisive control of the world's largest oil supplies. This flies in the face of most of America's history, starting with George Washington's farewell address warning against "foreign entanglements." It's not only un-American, but is the assumption used throughout history to justify empires, and in every single case has ended up bleeding dry those empires, consigning them to painful contraction or total collapse.

And neither the "lie of convenience" nor the "lie of ignorance" were demonstrably the reasons why Bush invaded Iraq.

So why then did George W. Bush lie us into invading and occupying Iraq?

We know that Bush wanted to massively cut taxes on his corporate sponsors and people, like himself, with substantial inherited fortunes. He wanted to weaken government protections of the environment, children, the poor, the elderly, the ozone layer, and our nation's forests. He wanted his oil-rig and mining-interest friends to have more access to public lands.

We know he wanted to undo Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal by stripping the American workplace (particularly government and schools) of unions, rolling back "socialist" unemployment and Social Security programs, and eliminating SEC and tort restraints on predatory corporate behavior. He'd even campaigned on this platform - particularly Social Security privatization - back in 1978 when he unsuccessfully ran for Congress from Texas.
We know he wanted to increase the police power of the federal government, gut the First and Fourth Amendments, and thus create a "safe and orderly nation" of people under constant surveillance, who never question those in power.

We know he wanted to give billions of our tax dollars to churches he approved of, and bring their leaders into the halls of government. He wanted to pass laws incorporating religious dogma about when human life begins, what is appropriate sexuality, and free churches to use tax-exempt dollars to influence politics.

It was an ambitious agenda. In order to bring about this neoconservative paradise, Bush knew he'd need considerable political capital. And that kind of capital didn't come from his being selected as President by the Supreme Court.

Such political capital - such raw political power - would only come, he believed, by his becoming a "war president."

Bush wasn't the first to realize how war strengthened a president in power, although the Founders saw it as a danger rather than an opportunity.

On April 20, 1795, James Madison wrote, "Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes. And armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few."

Reflecting on war's impact on the Executive Branch of government, Madison continued his letter about the dangerous and intoxicating power of war for a president.

"In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive [President] is extended," he wrote. "Its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war...and in the degeneracy of manners and morals, engendered by both.

"No nation," he concluded, "could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
But freedom wasn't the goal of George W. Bush or his neoconservative Republican colleagues. It was political power. And they were willing to lie us into a war to achieve it.

Writer Russ Baker noted in October, 2004, that Mickey Herskowitz, the man Bush had originally hired to write his autobiography ("A Charge To Keep: My Journey To The White House"), told Baker that George Bush was planning his Iraq invasion - to seize and hold political power for himself and the Republican Party - during his first presidential election campaign.

"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," Herskowitz told Baker. "It was on his mind. He [Bush] said to me: 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He said, 'If I have a chance to invade, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency."

Bush lied, and Americans died. And continue to die. But politically - at least so far - it has worked out well for Bush.

It was a lie of political expediency, with the war resolution carefully timed just before the 2002 elections to help the Republicans take back the Senate.

It was echoed and amplified and repeated over and over again to help him and other Republicans get elected in 2004.

It wasn't a war for oil - cheap oil was just a useful secondary benefit.

It wasn't a war against terrorism - that was just a convenient excuse.

It wasn't a war to enrich Bush's and Cheney's cronies - those were just pleasant by-products.

It wasn't a war to show Poppy Bush that Junior was more of a man than him - that was just a personal bonus for Dubya.

It was, pure and simple, well planned years in advance, a war to solidify Bush and the Republican Party's political capital.

It was a war for political power. That had to be first. Everything else - oil, profits, ongoing PATRIOT Act powers, easy manipulation of the media - all could only come if political power was seized and held through at least two decisive election cycles.

The Bush administration lied us into an invasion to get and keep political power. It's that simple.

The same reason Richard Nixon authorized Watergate and then lied about the cover-up. The same reason Nixon lied about his "secret plan" to get out of Vietnam.

When Americans - and the US media - finally realize that Bush's lie was just to get "political capital," to increase the "discretionary power of the President" so he could undo Roosevelt's New Deal and seal power across all three branches of government for his Party, they will turn on him and his Republican co-conspirators.

If it comes out in the open before the election of 2006, Republicans could even lose the House and the Senate, which would virtually guarantee investigations of the many other crimes of the Bush administration. (For example, "bribery" is one of two crimes cited in the Constitution as grounds for impeachment - and the Big Pharma/Medicaid and Big Tobacco/lawsuit settlement cases may qualify.)

Probably the only two things that could slow down the American electorate's growing realization of the magnitude and horror of Bush's political lies would be another attack on America or a new Bush-led war into Syria, Iran, or North Korea.

Bush has already shown, by lying us into Iraq, that he's at least capable of the latter. As Jefferson wrote in a letter to James Madison on February 8th 1776, "It should ever be held in mind that insult and war are the consequences of a lack of respectability in the national character."

And already the cons are working the talk-show circuit, threatening the US with a new attack, and recommending we strike now at Iran or Syria. "Be afraid. Be aggressive. Give us more political power."

But if Jefferson was right when he said that the best defense of democracy was an informed electorate, there is still a small window of opportunity for the American press to do the job they've been so carefully avoiding these past five years.

Instead of just reporting that the Downing Street Minutes and memos exist, they can highlight them against the timeline of Bush repeatedly lying during those days before the war. They can quote him saying that he had no plans for war, was working toward peace, and only wanted Congressional authorization to avoid a war, and point out that this was all after - months after - his administration had told the British that war was a sure thing.

Lying, in other words, to get us to go along with an invasion that would cement in Republican control of the Congress and the White House, and, thus, also the courts. Lying for nothing more than "political capital."

Let us hope our Fourth Estate is up to the task.

Thom Hartmann (thom at thomhartmann.com) is a Project Censored Award-winning best-selling author, and host of a nationally syndicated daily progressive talk show and a morning progressive talk show on KPOJ in Portland, Oregon. www.thomhartmann.com His most recent books are "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight," "Unequal Protection," "We The People," "The Edison Gene", and "What Would Jefferson Do?

Topic of the Week - Response to Minnesota Family Council Editorial

2005-07-30T09:46:00.000-05:00

The following letter was sent to the Minneapolis Star Tribune today in response to Tom Prichard, President of the Minnesota Family Council, editorial printed in the newspaper regarding his opposition to same sex marriage. This letter could be used as an example and be sent to each national and state government representative in opposition to the many "Family" organizations rooted in prejudice (American Family Research Council and Focus on the Family are prime examples of these type of "Family" organizations). Both the letter and the editorial by Prichard are reprinted below.

Dear Star Tribune,

I would like to respond to Tom Prichard's editorial you printed today, Saturday July 30, 2005. Prichard, President of the Minnesota Family Council, gives a counter-point to the Star Tribune editorial from last Saturday, July 23rd supporting Canada's resolution on Civil Marriage, inclusive of same sex marriage.

First, Prichard immediately exposes his flaw of his stance when he claims the Star Tribune "fails to successfully answer the religious and other objections to same sex marriage." Response: Our Constitution clearly states the need for separation of church and state so Prichard's focus on the religious objection has no relevance in our government policies.

Second, Prichard states that "gay activists aren't seeking equal access to marriage. They can already marry; it just must be to a person of the opposite sex." Response: Prichard clearly exposes his ignorance with this comment and completely negates his comments further in the article when he states that same sex marriage could lead to polygamy. Suggesting a solution for the gay and lesbian community to marry the opposite sex completely portrays a lack of understanding from Prichard on how gays or lesbians cannot just fall in love with the opposite sex - it is counter to their DNA. So is Prichard advocating marriage between two people without a foundation of love? It certainly seems so.

Third, Prichard states that "Marriage has always been rooted in the relationship between a man and a woman -- a relationship that is essential to procreation and to the successful nurturing of children." Response: Recent studies prove that children raised in a same sex household have no less personal development than those in heterosexual households. According to the MECA (Marriage Equality California) who has done more bi-partisan research on this issue than any other organization, Charlotte J. Patterson of the University of Virginia summarizes from seven in-depth research studies comparing heterosexual and same sex marriage parenting. Patterson states "there is no evidence to suggest that lesbians and gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of gay men or lesbians is compromised in any respect relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth." Besides Prichard's biblical belief, can he support any research study that supports his claim that children of heterosexual couples are better off developmentally than same sex couples? No, he cannot.

Fourth, Prichard states consistently that marriage equates to raising children. Response: I, personally, take offense to this. My wife and I have decided currently not to have children - a choice we both made. According to Prichard and other conservative "Family" organizations who are against same sex marriage, they believe procreation is essential to marriage. So literally according to Prichard, our decision to not have children is against the definition of marriage. I think every married couple who choose not to have children would argue they are legally married, would they not?

Fifth, Prichard takes the typical 'persecuted' stance when he states that the church in Canada is being victimized "Catholic and evangelical leaders now face threats of legal sanctions if they speak out against same sex marriage." Response: Yes, public opposition against same sex marriage is prejudice - period. If Prichard and the Church leaders publicly proclaimed that African-Americans, Muslims, Hispanics and other minorities should not be married, this would be correctly defined as bigotry. And legal sanctions could be levied against this bigotry as bigotry is rooted in hate and inciting hate. Just yesterday on July 29th, the Orlando Sentinel reported that hate crimes against the gay community in Florida is at an all time high "The number of such incidents statewide accounted for 20 percent of all hate crimes in 2003, the highest proportion for this category ever recorded in Florida." So this type of preaching publicly, outside their church, against opposition to same sex marriage needs to be monitored so it does not incite hate crimes.

And finally, I would like to challenge Prichard's implication of Churches right to Tax-Exempt status. I think we should ask ourselves, why are Churches categorized as 501(c) organizations and realize tax benefits inclusive of exemption from state and federal corporate income tax and possible exemptions from local property taxes? Organized religion (churches) are a business - they operate as a business and generate income by soliciting funds from their membership (customers). Because, at times, a part of their profits are given to charitable causes ((by no means a regular practice within all church organizations), does this entitle all realized profits not to be taxed? For example, the profit realized by a church that is reinvested into creating and building a larger building may not be taxed or be taxed at a much lower rate. Why? A majority of businesses in the United States have setup foundations and or causes that give monies to charitable organizations as well - why are their other profits, reinvested into their businesses, taxed at a higher rate? Surely, I would think Republicans and Democrats who are fighting for lower taxes would question this inequality, wouldn't they? It seems clear to me our country should consider taxing these church businesses who take their profit and reinvest into their business at the same rate as other businesses who do the same. With our soaring deficit, this is just one possible solution to increase tax dollars to help alleviate our national and state debt(s) that is both equitable and acceptable. Yes, charitable contributions deserve to be a tax write-off...but not monies that are used for operating expenses, building larger churches and/or increasing salaries of the church hierarchy. Something to think about.

In summary, the bottom line is that Prichard and the Minnesota Family Council are inciting prejudice against gays and lesbians and trying to incorporate their biblical beliefs into our public policies here in Minnesota. Not only does the U.S. Constitution state that separation of church and state is our foundation, but I believe our Minnesota government and Minnesota populace respects this value within our public policies as well.

Comments? Click below on "Post your Comments."

Tom Prichard: Reject Canada's same-sex marriage error
Tom Prichard
July 30, 2005 PRICHARD0730

The Star Tribune's editorial "Canada Leads: Gay equality is the issue" is both a success and a failure. It succeeds in exposing the flawed basis for the editors' support of same-sex marriage (SSM). And it fails to successfully answer the religious and other objections to SSM.

The editorial argues that SSM is an issue of equality: Gays and lesbians need to be treated equally. The reality is that gay activists aren't seeking equal access to marriage. They can already marry; it just must be to a person of the opposite sex. They want a radical redefinition of marriage, and they're attempting to co-opt the term "equality" to get it. People's concepts of equality evolve, they argue.

Advocates of this "evolving" equality have to answer the logical question: If marriage should be redefined to include two people of the same sex, why shouldn't it be broadened to include three women and a man (polygamy)? Why not whole groups of individuals (polyamory) as some now advocate? There simply is no rational basis for limiting this "evolving" equality.
The fact is that true marriage is founded on something more substantial than the latest social theory. It's rooted in who we are as human beings -- in nature and in creation. Our nation's founders referred to it as "the laws of nature and of nature's God."

Marriage has always been rooted in the relationship between a man and a woman -- a relationship that is essential to procreation and to the successful nurturing of children. (Of course, that leads to another question same-sex marriage advocates must answer: Who is the unnecessary person in this nurturing and raising of children -- the mother or the father? By definition one or the other is eliminated from a same-sex household.)

The editorial argues that religious objectors don't really need to be concerned about a legal redefinition of marriage, because what we're talking about is "civil" marriage and not "religious" marriage. But the civil benefits of marriage don't differ from the religious simply because it's civil. The need for a mother and father in a child's life doesn't change once you leave the church, synagogue or mosque. SSM will simply deepen the already devastating problems in our society of children lacking either a father or a mother.

The editorial also forces us to ask: Where, exactly, is Canada leading with regard to religious freedom and SSM? Let's look at the church in Canada. Catholic and evangelical leaders there now face threats of legal sanctions if they speak out against SSM. Bishop Frederick Henry of Calgary was warned by Revenue Canada that his public opposition to SSM might jeopardize his charitable tax status.

In Europe the same pattern exists, with church leaders threatened with criminal sanctions if they speak out against homosexual behavior -- behavior that will be officially affirmed by society if SSM is recognized. It doesn't take much imagination to realize that if SSM becomes the law of the land in the United States, churches opposing it would face the loss of their tax-exempt status, and individuals could find themselves charged under anti-discrimination laws.
Fortunately, the effort of SSM advocates to piggyback off the civil rights movement is being exposed for what it is -- the co-opting of a legitimate equality struggle for the pursuit of lifestyle choices. It's not surprising that many of the most vocal opponents of SSM are members of the African-American community.

No, we don't want to follow Canada, because that nation's path will only lead to the further disintegration of marriage, harm to children and religious persecution.

Thankfully, most Minnesotans realize the folly of following that lead.

Tom Prichard is president of the Minnesota Family Council.

Comments? Post below.

Civil Marriage - A Lesson to the U.S. (and Christian Right) from Canada

2005-07-24T07:29:00.000-05:00

It was a pleasure to read the Editorial of Saturday, July 23rd in the Minneapolis Star Tribune on how 'Canada Leads - Gay Equality is the [real] Issue.' The definition of marriage, only between a man and woman, should be left up to churches/religions who interpret their religious faith within this realm...not our government. Civil Marriage (i.e. Civil Unions) is appropriately recognized now in Canada, within their governmental policy, inclusive of unions between both heterosexual and same sex couples. Bravo to the Canadian government.

Within this Editorial, it was so encouraging to read that Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin changed his view on the definition of marriage stating "My misgivings about extending the right of civil marriage to same-sex couples were a function of my faith, my perspective on the world around us. But much has changed since that day four years ago...we've come to the realization that instituting civil unions -- adopting a 'separate but equal' approach -- would violate the equality provisions of the Charter. We've confirmed that extending the right of civil marriage to gays and lesbians will not in any way infringe on religious freedoms."

Lets emphasize this again - extending the right of civil marriage to gays and lesbians will not in any way infringe on relgious freedoms - period. Our current regime, the Replublican Party and The Christian Right need to face reality respective of this truth (as outlined in our Constitution) that Civil Marriage respects the right of religious freedom and supports the separation of church and state in this country. Gay marriage in no way violates religious expression and religious freedom for any individual or group...and The Christian Right needs to support this truth. If The Christian Right is as patriotic as they like to claim, they will respect this valued principle of our Constitution.

I admire Canadian Prime Minister Martin for reflecting on this issue, and changing his stance from four years ago, in support of legalizing Civil Marraige. He reminds me of advice I received a couple months ago from a very wise 87 year old 'young' gentleman who told me "for a person to change his mind, he must have one."

The Editorial in the Star Tribune is outlined below for your benefit:

Editorial: Canada leads/Gay equality is the issue
July 23, 2005 ED0723

Canada, like the United States, is a nation of immigrants, a nation that respects and protects minority rights. While it frequently chafes at being overshadowed by the superpower to its south, Canada this week took a step Americans will someday emulate. It legalized gay marriages in the name of equality.

Why do we believe the trend will spread, when today's most vigorous efforts on the subject go in the opposite direction? Because people's concepts of equality evolve. Just as the United States came to realize women deserved the right to vote, just as it later realized the rights of people from different races to marry each other, we are convinced that it eventually will accept the reasoning that has led the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain and now Canada to recognize same-sex marriages.

That's why it is dismaying that Minnesotans will likely spend next year arguing whether the state Constitution should be changed to specifically disallow gay marriage, and even civil unions. Gov. Tim Pawlenty, while indicating support for some kind of protection for gay couples, stops short of civil unions. And his party appears ready to make the constitutional amendment a major goal.

Our hope is that Minnesotans, like many Canadians, will begin to look at the issue in terms of equality. Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin, in a long, impassioned address, demonstrated how quickly people's views can change when they begin to look at it from this perspective. On Feb. 16, he said to the House of Commons, "I rise in support of Bill C-38, the Civil Marriage Act. I rise in support of a Canada in which liberties are safeguarded, rights are protected and the people of this land are treated as equals under the law. ... Our deliberations will be not merely about a piece of legislation ... more deeply, they will be about the kind of nation we are today, and the nation we want to be." Martin pointed out that four years ago he voted to support the traditional definition of marriage, explaining, "My misgivings about extending the right of civil marriage to same-sex couples were a function of my faith, my perspective on the world around us.

"But much has changed since that day. We've heard from courts across the country, including the Supreme Court. We've come to the realization that instituting civil unions -- adopting a 'separate but equal' approach -- would violate the equality provisions of the Charter. We've confirmed that extending the right of civil marriage to gays and lesbians will not in any way infringe on religious freedoms."

What Americans can learn from Martin's transformation, and that of many Canadians, is that religious freedom and a minority's right to equality can go hand in hand under the Constitution just as they now do under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. No religious entity is compelled to marry a same-sex couple in Canada. This law is about civil marriage. What various religious entities do is entirely up to them. Canada is therefore free to protect the minority rights of gays and lesbians, and religions are free to marry or not to marry as their faiths dictate. These are two separate issues.

As people the world over have come to recognize that homosexuality is not a "lifestyle choice" but a fact of life, more and more are beginning to realize that same-sex couples deserve the same respect and protection that traditional couples have had. There are many ways to protect such couples, as evidenced in the differing laws of Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, New Zealand and Finland -- each of which grants registered same-sex partners the same or similar rights as married couples. But Americans, sooner or later, would do well to separate in their minds civil and religious marriage rights -- and ultimately confer civil rights to this minority population.

Your opinion? Click below to post your comments

Topic of the Week - Focus on the Big Picture...and Karl Rove must Resign

2005-07-17T18:23:00.000-05:00

Lets review the facts and opinions/hypothesis of the security breech by Karl Rove and lets keep our eye on the 'big picture' here in what this media attention is really about - the White House manufactured and manipulated evidence and deceived Congress and the American People to invade the country of Iraq - period. Anyone with a brain and who has followed all the information and reports from the UK government officials (i.e. Downing Street Memo), the US officials (recent Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame smear campaign by the White House) knows this to be true. We all knew it to be true back in 2003 in the build-up to the invasion of Iraq - it was obvious the Bush administration had a hidden agenda to invade Iraq and no one, including the United Nations, was going to stop them.

Lets look at the Wilson/Plame smear campaign in detail...and keep your eye again on the big picture here on what this security breech is really about - manufacturing evidence to deceive Congress and the American people to invade Iraq.

1. Fact: Karl Rove lied denying previous statements in 2003 that he had nothing to do in leaking Valerie Plame's name to the media.

As reported on NBC's Meet the Press by Tim Russert this morning: Matthew Cooper, Time Magazine reporter answered the following question before the Grand Jury as written in Time Magazine's recent, July 25, 2005 issue;

Question: Was it through my (Cooper's) conversation with Karl Rove that I leaned for the first time that [Joe] Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and may have been responsible for sending Joe Wilson to Niger to investigate the 'Yellow Cake' Uranium sale to Iraq? Answer: Yes

Question: Did Rove say that she worked at the [CIA] "agency" on "WMD"? Answer: Yes

Question: When Rove said things would be declassified soon, was that itself impermissible? Answer: I don't know. (Remember this statement that "things would be declassified soon.")

Question Directly from Tim Russert: For the record, the first time you learned that Joe Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, worked for the CIA was from Karl Rove? Answer by Cooper: Yes

2. Fact & Hypothesis: VP Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff Scooter Libby had given Matthew Cooper a specific waiver, and I (Cooper) gave a deposition in the office of my attorney in August, 2004 regarding limited conversations with Libby that was not discussed until now. Libby on the record denied that Cheney played or knew or had any role in Wilson's trip to Niger. Off the record, I asked Libby if he had heard anything about Wilson's wife sending her husband to Niger. Libby replied "Yeah, I've heard that too."

Fact: Libby, Cheney's Chief of Staff, denied Cheney had anything to do with or knowing Wilson went to Niger or played an role within this mission.

Hypothesis: Dick Cheney orchestrated this 'Yellow Cake' uranium scheme in his bid to manufacture evidence to justify an invasion of Iraq.

3. Fact & Hypothesis: Matthew Cooper in the July 17, 2003 issue of Time magazine that "some government officials have noted to Time magazine in interviews, (as well as to syndicated columnist Robert Novak) that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. These officials have suggested that she was involved in her husband's being dispatched to Niger....

Question by Tim Russert: Some government officials? Were those Rove & Libby? Answer by Cooper: Yes

Question from Russert: Are there more government officials? Answer by Cooper: I don't want to get into it, but it's possible.

Question by Russert: Have you told the Grand Jury about that...that there may have been more sources? Answer by Cooper: Yes.

Hypothesis: VP Dick Cheney (and most likely President Bush) was very much involved in trying to manufacture evidence to invade Iraq and Cheney was the main person (along with Karl Rove) behind the "smear" campaign of Joe Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame.

4. Fact: On July 14, 2003, Robert Novak's syndicated newspaper column stated "Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me that Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger....The CIA says its counterproliferaion officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him."

Karl Rove...spoke with the columnist Robert D. Novak [on July 8, 2003 - six days prior to Novak's column above] as he was preparing an article...that identified a CIA officer who was the undercover, someone who has been officially briefed on the matter said. Mr Rove has told investigators as of last Friday, July 15, 2005 that he learned from the columnist the name of the CIA officer, who was referred to by her maiden name, Valerie Plame, and the circumstances in which her husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, traveled to Africa to investigate possible uranium sales to Iraq the "person" said. After hearing Mr. Novak's account, the person who has been briefed on the matter said, Mr. Rove told the columnist "I heard that, too." This past account was reported in the July 15, 2005 edition of the NY Times.

5. Fact: On Friday, July 11, 2003 in a Newsweek magazine article July 16, 2005 issue reported that "Rove told Matthew Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by "DCIA "- CIA Director George Tenet - or Vice President, Dick Cheney. Rather, 'it was (Rove said) Wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on WMD issues who authorized the trip."

Karl Rove "out-ed" Valerie Plame to the media which is against the 1982 law forbidden White House officials, or anyone employed in government service, to disclose a CIA operative to the public. This is breaking the law. Rove's attorney will stand behind the fact that Rove apparently did not disclose Valerie Plame's actual name but rather leaked that this CIA operative was Joseph Wilson's wife. Regardless, it is obvious Karl Rove is guilty of leaking information to the press that threatens national security.

6. Fact: Karl Rove signed an oath as employed by the White House, and they (White House employees) are given a briefing book that states within "Before....confirming the accuracy of what appears in the public source, the signer of the SF 312 must confirm through an authorized official that the information has, in fact, been declassified. If it has not....confirmation of its accuracy is also an unauthorized disclosure." Briefing Booklet; Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement Page 73.

So by confirming a story with Robert Novak, or sharing a story with Matthew Cooper, no matter where it came from, Karl Rove leaked to the press classified information after taking an oath to the President of the United States not to do so.

7. Statement: John Podesta, former Chief of Staff for Bill Clinton stated on Meet the Press: "What's this all about? This is about the White House trying to defend its use of manipulated information of intelligence material to invade Iraq. Mr. Rove stated he was not involved in the Wilson/Plame disclosure, as stated by Scott McClellan in July, 2003 press briefing. This is a lie - Karl Rove was involved and leaked Valerie Plame's name to the press. This is a lie and Karl Rove is the top advisor to our President. Karl Rove must resign."

8. Fact: The Iraq invasion has increased the number of 'terrorists' within the Islamic fundamentalist culture worldwide. According to many sources and research conducted in 2004 and 2005 (see most recent study as reported in today's July 17, 2005 Boston Globe newspaper http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/
2005/07/17/study_cites_seeds_of_terror_in_iraq/ )
the Iraq invasion has most definitely increased the hostility and number of 'terrorists' both domestically and internationally in their fight against the United States and its allies. On the CNN morning edition this past Friday, July 15, 2005, in an exclusive interview with two Iraqi insurgents, both insurgents acknowledged the Iraq invasion has created a hatred so much so that the insurgents are able to recruit Islamic fighters from around the world in fighting the U.S. and their numbers have increased significnatly because of the Iraq invasion.

The bottom line is that Karl Rove has to resign - period. He lied and manipulated evidence in a smear campaign against Josheph Wilson and his wife, Valerie Plame who is a CIA operative, to cover-up the lies, deception and manufactured evidence from the White House in attempting to justify their invasion of Iraq.

Once again, do not forget the big picture here and let me restate it - The White House manufactured evidence and deceived Congress and the American people in order to invade Iraq and occupy a country. Currently, over 1,700 U.S. lives have been lost, presumable over 12,000 Iraqi citizens have been killed and over $500 billion dollars of our tax payer monies have been spent on this invasion. And finally, this Iraq invasion, besides being immoral, has left our country vulnerable militarily and economically...more so than any time in our country's history - period.

Comments? Click below to post your comments.

Muslim Fundamentalism & Conservative Christianity vs. Secularism

2005-07-12T07:41:00.000-05:00

I am reading a three part series of articles running on the front page of the Wall Street Journal on 'Islam & Europe - A Volatile Mix." In the second series of articles, they are tracing the history of the emergence of Islamic Fundamentalism in Europe and profiling four key individuals on their efforts to build a foundation for Islamic Fundamentalism. As the WSJ reports in the article:

These current tensions are embedded in the events of half a century ago. Postwar Munich was a ruined city packed with Muslim emigres fleeing persecution. While the West tried to observe and control them as valuable pawns in the Cold War, they encountered formidable rivals seeking their own power bases in Europe's burgeoning Muslim world.

Over the next few decades, four men would try successively to control the Munich mosque: a brilliant professor of Turkic studies, an imam in Hitler's SS, a charismatic Muslim writer with a world-wide following and a hard-nosed Muslim financier now under investigation for backing terrorism. Most favored some sort of accommodation with the West. But the victor had a bolder vision: a global Islam opposed to the ideals of secular democracy.

The last line in the second paragraph (in bold here) is most interesting in that there is a correlation between The Christian Right and its opposition to secular democracy and Islamic fundamentalism and its opposition to secular democracy. It seems that the fundamental Christians and fundamental Islamists have a core principle in common. The line between fundamental Christianity and fundamental Islam is much thinner than some may care to acknowledge...

Your thoughts? Click below to post your response.

The London Attacks and Fear Rhetoric by the Bush Regime and The Christian Right

2005-07-10T08:57:00.000-05:00

As the horrific events of the London bombings unfold from this past Thursday, one can almost feel the emergence of fear that was so prevalent, and orchestrated, by the Bush regime and The Christian Right over the last five years.

First, lets be real - the deaths and injuries from the London attacks are very tragic and targeting innocent people, no matter how desperate certain groups within the Islamic faith feel, is no basis for acknowledgement of their cause when murder is their primary protest - period. Its unfortunate that these Islamic groups do not review history and understand that massive change and awareness is only productive through peaceful expostulation (i.e. Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King).

But lets not forget that innocent people are dying each and every single day in Iraq...our occupation is a cause for this loss of innocent lives whether you want to acknowledge and accept this truth or not. My point is lets be aware of the entire picture with respect to the killing of innocent lives.

The "War on Terror" was defined after 9/11 by the Bush Regime as an offensive measure...to both take the fight to the terrorists as well as to leverage fear in obtaining their political agenda. The Christian Right has always had a foundation of fear in their belief system...fear of homosexuals, fear of other belief systems, etc. The connection between the Bush regime and The Christian Right is very deep...almost an unconscious connection cloaked in fear.

Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, Richard Pearle and Paul Wolfowitz realize how this fear can impassion people...so much so that this fear overrides their entire life, day by day, hour by hour. A bit dramatic? No, not really. Think about it for a moment.

After 9/11 and for the next three years leading up to the election of 2004, every Christian Right I spoke with completely ignored the deceit, corruption and policy agenda of the Bush regime, which put America and the American people in the worse situation politically, militarily and economically in our history. Each Christian Right would froth at the mouth if you dared criticize the Bush regime on any Bush policy decision. They called you unpatriotic and even called you a traitor.

Most personal value traits (benevolence, tolerance, etc.) were overridden by a 'pack' mentality witch hunt to seek and destroy anyone who got in their way...including the people of France, all of Europe, Canada and any other former ally who did not 'obey' this new world order. And this new world order was and is based only on fear and control.

This offensive fear strategy against terror is wrong. Anyone with an understanding of basic psychology knows that a strategy of destruction against an enemy, no matter the justification and consequences, spreads to a fervor among the offensive party and their supporters of bias, prejudice, extreme nationalism and a mentality of superiority. Any action is justified and then supported by those people who are fearfully loyal to their leader(s).

And lets be clear - the war on terror to eliminate terrorist acts/attacks cannot be 'won' with an offensive strategy. It only increases a resentment which multiplies throughout the opposing faction. The Iraq invasion is just one example of this flawed belief.

Terrorist acts can only be contained - any battle that is won in Iraq, Afghanistan or any other territory in the world is one small battle won but the chances of winning the war only diminishes. Those who don't allow fear to overwhelm their lives understand this. They understand that as long as our current regime tries to 'stomp-out' terrorism for good, it will only increase the number of terrorist acts in the future. Any offensive strategy is a destructive strategy and 9/11, or the recent London attacks, does not validate this strategy.

I suggest you to be aware of the Bush regime's rhetoric going forward in the wake of the London bombings. The Christian Right will respond once again with indignance how America is the best country in the world and we need to teach the world how to adhere to 'our' values. They will mobilize further and respond with blind loyalty to the Bush regime's use of fear rhetoric in order to continue to push their fear agenda forward.

I encourage you to challenge immediately any fear type of rhetoric, comment or discussion you encounter either interpersonally, within the media (write emails to the Editor) and/or within our politician's rhetoric. The London bombings are tragic....but don't let our current regime exploit it at the expense of our civil liberties, our values and what our domestic and foreign policy should be...because this current regime is already exploiting it. Fear is the only tactic the Bush regime has left.

Comments? Click below to post your comments.

An Article Worth Posting - "A Church-State Solution" NY Times Magazine

2005-07-04T04:57:00.000-05:00

As we all strive to find common ground between the separation of church and state issue, the following front page feature from the New York Times Magazine of July 3, 2005 is worth reading...and good food for thought.

A Church-State Solution
By NOAH FELDMAN
Published: July 3, 2005

Noah Feldman is a professor at the New York University School of Law and a fellow at the New America Foundation. His book ''Divided by God: America's Church-State Problem -- and What We Should Do About It,'' from which this article is adapted, will be published later this month by Farrar, Straus & Giroux.

I. THE EXPERIMENT
For roughly 1,400 years, from the time the Roman Empire became Christian to the American Revolution, the question of church and state in the West always began with a simple assumption: the official religion of the state was the religion of its ruler. Sometimes the king fought the church for control of religious institutions; other times, the church claimed power over the state by asserting religious authority over the sovereign himself. But the central idea, formally enshrined at Westphalia in 1648 by the treaty that ended the wars of religion in Europe, was that each region would have its own religion, namely that of the sovereign. The rulers, meanwhile, manipulated religion to serve their own ends. Writing just before the American Revolution, the British historian Edward Gibbon opined that the people believed, the philosophers doubted and the magistrates exploited. Gibbon's nominal subject was ancient Rome, but his readers understood that he was talking about their world too.

All this changed with the radical idea, introduced during the American Revolution, that the people were sovereign. This arrangement profoundly disturbed the old model of church and state. To begin with, America was religiously diverse: how could the state establish the religion of the sovereign when the sovereign people in America belonged to many faiths -- Congregationalist, Anglican, Presbyterian, Baptist, Quaker? Furthermore, the sovereign people would actively believe in religion instead of cynically manipulating it, and elite skeptics would no longer be whispering in the ears of power. Religion would be a genuinely popular, even thriving, political force.

This model called for a new understanding of church and state, and the framers of the American Constitution rose to the occasion. They designed a national government that, for the first time in Western history, had no established religion at all. The Articles of Confederation, which were drawn up during the Revolutionary War, had been silent on religion -- itself something of an innovation. But the Constitution went further by prohibiting any religious test for holding office. And the first words of the First Amendment stated that ''Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'' If the people were to be sovereign, and belonged to different religions, the state religion would be no religion at all. Otherwise, the reasoning went, too many religious denominations would be in competition to make theirs the official choice, and none could prevail without coercing dissenters to support a church other than their own -- a violation of the liberty of conscience that Americans had come to believe was a God-given right. Establishment of religion at the national level was prohibited. Religious diversity had ensured it. The experiment had begun.

II. OUR PRESENT PREDICAMENT
During the two and a quarter centuries since America's founding, the experiment has progressed fitfully. The nonestablishment of religion, with a simultaneous guarantee of its free exercise, was an elegant solution but not a complete one. Generation after generation, fresh infusions of religious diversity into American life have brought with them original ideas about church and state -- new answers to the challenge of preserving the unity of the sovereign people in the face of their flourishing spiritual variety and often conflicting religious needs.

Consider the influx of Catholic immigrants that followed the Irish potato famine in the 1840's. In the overwhelmingly Protestant world of the framers' America, there was a common belief that taxation for religious purposes violated religious liberty. As a result, when public schools were invented a few decades later, they featured only ''nonsectarian'' Bible reading and prayer. But Catholic immigrants soon protested that the schools' nonsectarianism -- in which the Protestant King James Bible was free to be interpreted by the individual student but not by the teacher (let alone a priest) -- was in fact sectarian Protestantism in disguise. The unsuccessful struggle of Catholic immigrants to have their own schools publicly financed or, failing that, to take the King James Bible out of the public schools, generated half a century of vituperative and sometimes deadly struggle.

In our own era, two camps dominate the church-state debate in American life, corresponding to what are now the two most prominent approaches to the proper relation of religion and government. One school of thought contends that the right answers to questions of government policy must come from the wisdom of religious tradition. You might call those who insist on the direct relevance of religious values to political life ''values evangelicals.'' Not every values evangelical is, technically speaking, an evangelical or a born-again Christian, although many are. Values evangelicals include Jews, Catholics, Muslims and even people who do not focus on a particular religious tradition but care primarily about identifying traditional moral values that can in theory be shared by everyone.

What all values evangelicals have in common is the goal of evangelizing for values: promoting a strong set of ideas about the best way to live your life and urging the government to adopt those values and encourage them wherever possible. To them, the best way to hold the United States together as a nation, not just a country, is for us to know what values we really hold and to stand up for them. As Ralph Reed recently told an audience at Harvard, ''While we are sometimes divided on issues, there remains a broad national consensus on core values and principles.''

On the other side of the debate are those who see religion as a matter of personal belief and choice largely irrelevant to government and who are concerned that values derived from religion will divide us, not unite us. You might call those who hold this view ''legal secularists,'' not because they are necessarily strongly secular in their personal worldviews -- though many are -- but because they argue that government should be secular and that the laws should make it so. To the legal secularists, full citizenship means fully sharing in the legal and political commitments of the nation. If the nation defines itself in terms of values drawn from religion, they worry, then it will inevitably tend to adopt the religious values of the majority, excluding religious minorities and nonreligious people from full citizenship.

Despite the differences, each approach, values evangelicalism and legal secularism, is trying to come to terms with the same fundamental tension in American life. The United States has always been home to striking religious diversity -- diversity that has by fits and starts expanded over the last 230 years. At the same time, we strive to be a nation with a common identity and a common project. Religious division threatens that unity, as we can see today more clearly than at any time in a century in the disputes over stem-cell research, same-sex marriage and end-of-life issues. Yet almost all Americans want to make sure that we do not let our religious diversity pull us apart. Values evangelicals say that the solution lies in finding and embracing traditional values we can all share and without which we will never hold together. Legal secularists counter that we can maintain our national unity only if we treat religion as a personal, private matter, separate from concerns of citizenship. The goal of reconciling national unity and religious diversity is the same, but the methods for doing it are deeply opposed.

Yet neither legal secularism nor values evangelicalism has lived up to its own aspirations. Each promises inclusion, but neither has delivered. To make matters worse, the conflict between these two approaches is becoming a political and constitutional crisis all its own. Talk of secession of blue states from red in the aftermath of the 2004 election was not meant seriously; but this kind of dark musing, with its implicit reference to the Civil War, is also not coincidental. It bespeaks a division deeper than any other in our public life, a division that cannot be healed by the victory of either side.

III. CLOSING THE RIFT
The split between legal secularism and values evangelicalism was not born in a day. Legal secularism arose in the post-World War II era, reflecting a growing concern about the need to protect religious minorities, especially newly visible Jews who were arguably excluded by public displays of Christian religion like crèches or recitations of the Lord's Prayer. But instead of attacking religion directly, as some antireligious secularists did earlier in the century with little success, organizations like Americans United for Separation of Church and State and the American Civil Liberties Union argued more narrowly that government ought to be secular in word, deed and intent. In 1971, in Lemon v. Kurtzman, the Supreme Court made this position law, requiring all government decisions to be motivated by a secular purpose, to have primarily secular effects and not to entangle the state with religious institutions. This new standard -- known thereafter as the ''Lemon test'' -- did much more than simply reaffirm a deeply rooted American norm of no government money for religion; it prohibited school prayer and Bible reading, which had been practiced in the public schools since their founding, and in many instances it removed Christmas decorations from the public square. The framers had neither known nor used the category ''secular'' as we understand it, but the court made secularism an official condition of all acceptable government conduct.

In many quarters of religious America, there was outrage at this court-mandated secularism, which to many believers soon came to seem of a piece with the Supreme Court's 1973 guarantee of abortion rights in Roe v. Wade. By 1980, the televangelist Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority, the political organization he founded, succeeded in mobilizing this frustration to help elect Ronald Reagan president. In time, Reagan's judicial nominees began to roll back the advances of legal secularism by allowing the government to pay for religious education and other activities via vouchers or other neutral and generally available government programs. In a particularly ingenious twist, evangelicals won these cases by depicting themselves as a minority subject to discrimination by secularists who wanted to deny them government support.

But the values evangelicals did not succeed entirely in reversing the Supreme Court's embrace of legal secularism. Throughout the 90's, in a series of 5-4 decisions in which Justice Sandra Day O'Connor provided the swing vote, the Supreme Court refused to permit the government to take any symbolic action that might be seen to ''endorse'' religion, thus preserving and even expanding the ban on school prayer. The other eight justices on the Rehnquist Court held that government financing and state-sponsored religious symbolism should be treated the same way: either both were permissible or both weren't. But since those justices were split 4-4 on whether to allow more of each or less of both, O'Connor's compromise -- allowing some government financing of religion but no government endorsement of religious symbols -- has been the law of the land for the last two decades.

The resulting doctrine has been the cause of the major church-state controversies of recent years. In 2004, for instance, when a California man named Michael Newdow pressed the court to find that the words ''under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance impermissibly endorsed religion, the court ducked the issue. The more liberal justices seemed afraid to rule the pledge unconstitutional yet were unwilling to embrace the view (advanced awkwardly by O'Connor, given her usual opposition to endorsing religious symbols) that there is no endorsement when the religious symbol is longstanding and common.

During the same Supreme Court term, a young man named Joshua Davey asked the court to require the state of Washington to let him use his public scholarship money to pay for his studies as a theology major at an evangelical college. But the court, including Chief Justice William Rehnquist, refused to overturn the state's policy against paying for religious courses of study, even though Davey was as much the victim of ''discrimination'' as were earlier evangelical plaintiffs whom the court had granted access to government money to pay for their student publications. In essence, the court, divided itself and uneasy about O'Connor's fence-sitting, is unwilling or unable to take a unified stand on what the Constitution really means when it comes to the relation between religion and government. It will be surprising if the Ten Commandments cases just decided by the court bring to an end the judicial wrangling over the church-state question.

The O'Connor compromise between values evangelicalism and legal secularism may be unsatisfactory, but the truth is that neither approach deserves to prevail. Both are self-contradictory: they fail precisely where they want to succeed, namely in reconciling religious diversity with unity. The values evangelicals want to find shared values, but that leads them to rely on the unexamined assumption that deep down, Americans agree on what matters. The trouble is that ''we'' often do not agree. The Ten Commandments may appeal to Jews and Christians, but to Muslims, they are an imperfect revelation superseded by the Koran, and Buddhists and Hindus find no appeal in the Commandments' self-attribution to the single God who took the Children of Israel out of Egypt.

Even a joint commitment to ''the culture of life'' turns out to be very thin. Catholics and conservative Protestants may agree broadly on abortion and euthanasia; but what about capital punishment, which Pope John Paul II condemned as an immoral usurpation of God's authority to determine life and death but which many evangelical Christians support as biblically mandated? To reach consensus, the values evangelicals have to water down the ''values'' they say they accept to the point where they would mean nothing at all. They are left either acknowledging disagreement about values or else falling into a kind of relativism (I'm O.K., you're O.K.) that is inconsistent with the very goal of standing for something rather than nothing.

Meanwhile, the legal secularists have a different problem. They claim that separating religion from government is necessary to ensure full inclusion of all citizens. The problem is that many citizens -- values evangelicals among them -- feel excluded by precisely this principle of keeping religion private. Keeping nondenominational prayer out of the public schools may protect religious minorities who might feel excluded; but it also sends a message of exclusion to those who believe such prayer would signal commitment to shared values. Increasingly, the symbolism of removing religion from the public sphere is experienced by values evangelicals as excluding them, no matter how much the legal secularists tell them that is not the intent.
Despite the gravity of the problem, I believe there is an answer. Put simply, it is this: offer greater latitude for religious speech and symbols in public debate, but also impose a stricter ban on state financing of religious institutions and activities. This approach, the mirror image of O'Connor's compromise, is drawn from the framers' vision and the historical experience of separating church and state in America. The framers might well have been mystified by courthouse statues depicting the Ten Commandments, but they would not have objected unless the monuments were built with public money. Having made a revolution over unfair taxation, they thought of government support in terms of dollars spent, not abstract symbols.

From this logic, it follows that a moment of silence to begin the school day should not be invalidated just because it is intended to let children pray if they wish. Though it will never be easy to determine when schoolchildren are being coerced by peer pressure, at least some older students at optional events like a Friday-night football game surely are not being forced to pray when others are doing so voluntarily. Intelligent-design theory, itself a product of the ill-advised demand that religion disguise itself in secular garb, should be opposed on the educational ground that it is poor science, not on the constitutional reasoning, which some secularists have advanced, that it is a cover for religious creationism. If its advocates can persuade a local school board to put it in the curriculum, the courts need not strike it down as an establishment of religion. On the other hand, charitable choice, which permits billions of dollars in federal money to support faith-based organizations, should not be a vehicle for allowing government to pay for programs that treat alcoholics by counseling them to accept Christ. Schools that teach that Shariah (or Jewish rabbinic law or canon law) is the ultimate source of values should not be supported by tuition vouchers.

Such a solution would both recognize religious values and respect the institutional separation of religion and government as an American value in its own right. This would mean abandoning the political argument that religion has no place in the public sphere while simultaneously insisting that government must go to great lengths to dissociate itself from supporting religious institutions. It would mean acknowledging a substantial difference between allowing religious symbols and speech in public places (so long as there is no public money involved) and spending resources to sustain religious entities like churches, mosques and temples. Public religious symbolism expressed in statues, oaths and prayers reflects citizens' desires to see their deeply held beliefs expressed in those public situations where moral commitments are relevant: legislatures, schools and, yes, courthouses and statehouses. Religious proclamations or prayers may open sessions of Congress without costing anyone a dime.

But government money, even when nominally available equally to all, inevitably creates political competition between religious groups over how and where scarce money will be spent. Zero-sum appropriations drive zero-sum politics. A tuition voucher is never priced out of thin air: its amount is set by a political process that favors some schools (for example, Catholic schools that already have infrastructures and support from a centralized church) at the expense of others.

In the courts, the arrangement that I'm proposing would entail abandoning the Lemon requirement that state action must have a secular purpose and secular effects, as well as O'Connor's idea that the state must not ''endorse'' religion. For these two tests, the courts should substitute the two guiding rules that historically lay at the core of our church-state experiment before legal secularism or values evangelicalism came on the scene: the state may neither coerce anyone in matters of religion nor expend its resources so as to support religious institutions and practices, whether generic or particular. These constitutional principles, reduced to their core, can be captured in a simple slogan: no coercion and no money. If no one is being coerced by the government, and if the government is not spending its money to build religious-themed monuments or support religious institutions and practices, the courts should hold that the Constitution is not violated.

Admittedly, this approach goes against the trends of the last several decades, which are for stricter regulation of public religious symbolism and more permissive authorization of government financing and support for religion. At first blush, then, the proposal may strike both sides of the current debate as mistaken, since it requires each to give up some victories in exchange for an alternative solution. Nonetheless this approach is not only faithful to our constitutional traditions; it also stands a chance of winning over secularists and evangelicals alike and beginning to close the rift between them.

IV. FAITH IS NOT A CONVERSATION STOPPER
The solution I have in mind rests on the basic principle of protecting the liberty of conscience. So long as all citizens have the same right to speak and act free of coercion, no adult should feel threatened or excluded by the symbolic or political speech of others, however much he may disagree with it. If many congressmen say that their faith requires intervening to save Terri Schiavo, that is not a violation of the rules of political debate. The secular congresswoman who thinks Schiavo should have the right to die in peace can express her contrary view and explain why it is that she believes a rational and legal analysis of the situation requires it. She may lose the vote, but she is not excluded from the process or from the body that votes against her, any more than a Republican would be ''excluded'' from a committee controlled by Democrats.

Legal secularists may fear that when facing arguments with religious premises, they have the deck stacked against them. If values evangelicals begin by asserting that God has defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman, then, say the secularists, the conversation about same-sex marriage is over. But in fact, secularists can make arguments of their own, which may be convincing: if the state is going to regulate marriages, shouldn't they be subject to the same equality requirement as every other law? Some might even go further and ask the evangelicals how they can be so sure that they have correctly identified God's will on the question. They may discover that few evangelicals treat faith as a conversation stopper, and most consider it just the opposite.

In any event, when the debate is over, the people will vote, and they will decide the matter. Legal secularists cannot realistically expect that they will win more democratic fights by banning the evangelicals' arguments, which can usually be recast, however disingenuously, as secular. Once in a while they may, if the composition of the Supreme Court is just right, thwart the values evangelicals' numerical superiority with a judicial override; but in the long run, all they will accomplish is to alienate the values evangelicals in a way that undercuts the meaningfulness of participatory democracy.

When it comes to religious symbolism, typically some group will ask the state for a display or an acknowledgment of their holiday or tradition -- a crèche or a statue, a song or pageant. Invoking Justice O'Connor's endorsement test, legal secularists ordinarily object that if the state acquiesces, then it is embracing the religious symbol and excluding adherents of other religions. But this interpretation of what state support would mean may not be the best or most natural one. The fact that others have asked for and gotten recognition implies nothing about the exclusion of any religious minority except for the brute fact that it is a religious minority. There is no reason whatever for religious minorities to be shielded from that fact, since there is nothing shameful or inherently disadvantageous in being a religious minority, so long as that minority is not subject to coercion or discrimination.

Take the fact that the government treats Christmas as a national holiday. It would be absurd if Jews or Muslims or Hindus or Buddhists felt fundamentally excluded from citizenship by this fact -- and I would venture to suggest that very few do. Most Americans are still Christians who celebrate Christmas, and the state acknowledges that fact, just as the culture does through the songs on the radio and the merchandise in the stores. The celebration may not always be deeply religious, but the atmosphere corresponds to the realities of the Christian majority. Just what is threatening to religious minorities about Christians celebrating the holiday or singing carols in school? What, exactly, is the harm in being wished Merry Christmas even if you're not celebrating? The state has not made Christianity relevant to citizenship nor has it spent taxpayers' money to advance the cause of the church. It has simply acknowledged the preferences of a majority. Some members of religious minorities may choose to spend December feeling bad that they are not part of the majority culture -- but they would have this same problem even if Christmas were not a national holiday, since Christmas would still be all around them. The answer is for them to strengthen their own identities and be proud of who they are, not to insist that the majority give up its own celebration to accommodate them.

In the last 50 years, legal secularists have expressed concern that public manifestations of religion marginalize religious minorities and hence reduce the capacity of those minorities to participate in a common national public life. And at times, that has been a valid complaint, as with mandatory religious exercises in schools. But today the increasing presence of other non-Christian religious minorities, and an attendant atmosphere of religious multiculturalism, mean that public manifestations of religion -- at least at the national level -- are becoming increasingly pluralistic and inclusive. Consider the televised memorial service led by President Bush on Sept. 14, 2001, a day he had designated as a national day of prayer and remembrance for the victims of the 9/11 attacks. With the cabinet, members of Congress and the foreign diplomatic corps in attendance, the president assured the congregation that God created a world ''of moral design'' and that ''the Lord of life holds all who die and all who mourn.'' Suffused with theology as much as any presidential address since Lincoln's second inaugural, the speech took on the problem of evil while commending the future of the republic to God's grace.

Yet despite the high-Protestant venue -- the Episcopal Washington National Cathedral -- the president was preceded in the pulpit by the dean of the cathedral as well as by the Roman Catholic archbishop of Washington, an African-American Methodist minister, Billy Graham, a rabbi and an imam who quoted verses from the Koran. The display of inclusiveness was driven not only by political imperative but also by the recognition that this extraordinary national-religious moment must reach out to America's religious diversity.
In this latest demographic version of a religiously diverse environment, where Protestants may soon cease to be a majority in the United States, the danger that Christmas crèches or prayer at high-school graduations will marginalize non-Christians is substantially decreased.

Some parts of the country are still dominated by particular denominations or trends; but even in the heart of the Bible Belt, diversity is growing as a result of immigration and shifting population patterns. Indeed, the Ten Commandments monument that Judge Roy Moore erected in the Alabama Supreme Court was thought by its supporters, however inaccurately, to be nonsectarian, on the theory that Jews and Christians alike respect the ideals it represents. Although insensitivity and ignorance are still very much with us, today we are unlikely to see the religious majority refusing to allow religious minorities to display their symbols alongside those of the majority. The five-times daily broadcast of the Muslim call to prayer from a mosque may at first raise hackles, but when the comparison to church bells is made, public acceptance is likely to follow, as it did in the town of Hamtramck, Mich., last summer.

V. WHAT INCLUSION REALLY LOOKS LIKE
Atheists will doubtless maintain that any public religion at all -- like ''under God'' in the Pledge of Allegiance -- excludes them by endorsing the idea of religion generally. But this misses the point: it is an interpretive choice to feel excluded by other people's faiths, and the atheist, like any other dissenter from a majoritarian decision, can just as easily adhere to his own views while insisting on his full citizenship. So long as no one is coerced into invoking God, it makes little sense to accommodate the atheist's scruples by barring everyone else from saying words that he alone finds to be metaphysically empty. Complete subjective inclusion is impossible, so if our goal is to include as many people as possible, we need to reach as widely as possible by letting the ordinary democratic process take its course. The Jehovah's Witnesses, who in the 1940's fought for the right not to salute the flag, never insisted that the salute or the pledge should be abolished altogether -- they just wanted their children to be exempt from a mandatory ritual that violated their consciences and hence their religious liberty.

In some instances, pluralistic, public expressions of religion even hold out the possibility of enabling new religious minorities to participate fully in the American public sphere. Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists, for whom religion and immigrant status may be closely connected, may well seek opportunities for the symbolic recognition of their citizenship that can be gained in schools, legislatures and elsewhere. Acknowledging holidays like the Muslim Eid al-Fitr or the Hindu Divali in what has traditionally been a Christian country may validate a sense of belonging in a way that no secular civic symbol can. Such an embrace of minority faith might go beyond symbols like legislative prayers, which remain legal despite secularist objections, and extend to celebrating holidays in the schools or granting adherents those days off from work, which would be of questionable constitutionality under current law. Ultimately, the nation may have more success generating loyalty from religiously diverse citizens by allowing inclusive governmental manifestations of religion than by banning them.

Observing the political clout of the values evangelicals, many legal secularists cannot imagine how the former could possibly feel marginalized from American society. They must realize, however, that the evangelicals' political strength has not often extended to the cultural realm, about which values evangelicals care the most. These evangelicals feel defensive not only because they believe they are losing the culture war and have trouble enacting religious values into public policy -- though, in fact, they have made some strides on issues like abortion and same-sex marriage -- but because they have difficulty making the religious sources of their ideas acceptable in the cultural-political conversation. To give a religious reason for passing a law is still to run the risk of that law being held unconstitutional as serving a religious rather than a secular purpose. So evangelicals end up speaking in euphemisms (''family values'') or proposing purpose-built dodges like ''creation science'' that even they often privately acknowledge to be paradoxical.

A better approach would be for secularists to confront the evangelicals' arguments on their own terms, refusing to stop the conversation and instead arguing for the rightness of their beliefs about their own values. Reason can in fact engage revelation, as it has throughout the history of philosophy. The skeptic can challenge the believer to explain how he derives his views from Scripture and why the view he ascribes to God is morally attractive -- questions that most believers consider profoundly important and perfectly relevant.

This kind of exchange need not produce agreement on abortion or same-sex marriage or anything else. To the contrary, hard moral questions will remain controversial. But acknowledging a moral debate as a moral debate in which all sides deserve a say will have the effect of communicating to evangelicals that their voices count. In the long run, this approach is more likely to focus our national debates on substance instead of procedure -- on what God or reason or whatever source of values teaches about human life and intimate choices, not about whether God belongs in the conversation at all. Secularists who are confident in their views should expect to prevail on the basis of reason; evangelicals who wish to win the argument will discover that their arguments must extend beyond simple invocation of faith.

VI. THE PROBLEM WITH MONEY
If we are to progress toward reconciliation of our church-state problem, it will not be enough for legal secularists to re-evaluate their attitude toward religious symbols and religious discourse. Values evangelicals must also change their ways and give something up -- by reconsidering their position in favor of state support for religious institutions. The reason they should be prepared to do so is that such state support actually undercuts, rather than promotes, the cohesive national identity that evangelicals have wanted to restore or recreate. When filtered through vouchers distributed by the government and directed by individual choice, state financial aid for religious institutions like schools or charities does not encourage common values; it creates conflict and division.

Today's voucher programs, like the one in Florida that is currently under challenge before the Florida Supreme Court, focus on helping kids in failing schools. But imagine a broader voucher system. Many or most parents might well use the vouchers to send their children to private, mostly religious schools; more than half the beneficiaries of the Florida program do exactly that, and in other, more focused plans, the numbers have been upward of 90 percent. Because we value religious liberty so highly, most Americans would surely agree that it would be wrong to regulate and supervise religious schools closely enough to ensure that they teach some version of prescribed American values. That is precisely why the Constitution has been interpreted to protect the right to educate your children in private religious schools altogether. But given this right to educate according to your own values, what is to ensure that the curriculum in state-supported religious schools will promote common values? It is at least as likely that balkanized schools will generate balkanized values as that they will promote a common national project.

While the great majority of schools run by most religious groups do encourage loyal citizenship by their lights, we cannot simply assume that any school of any religious denomination will teach shared American national identity or values. Some schools will teach that the best form of life is to prefer your fellows -- whether Protestants or Jews or Muslims or Catholics -- to other Americans. No religious tradition is without at least a hint of such particularism, which is just one mechanism by which common citizenship may be undermined by some forms of religion. Different religious schools will also teach disparate values, increasing national disagreement when it comes to controversial issues.

There is nothing inherently wrong with that type of values diversity, of course. Private schools unsupported by vouchers can in any case teach whatever they want about citizenship and loyalty. But while values evangelicalism claims to advocate national unity and inclusion through shared values, school-voucher programs cut exactly the other way, promoting difference and nonengagement. Permitting schools supported by private money to teach that there is no common American undertaking is not the same as encouraging that teaching through state subsidy.

Now consider what will happen when some delegate in a state legislature rises to argue that voucher payments should not be extended to schools that teach racism, or anti-Americanism, or sexism. Under the law as it is developing, the state cannot pick and choose but must pay for all the schools or none. Cutting financing for the offending school would require cutting it for every school. There will then inevitably ensue a debate about whether the outrage of financing this one school outweighs the benefits of financing all the others. In essence, this will be a debate about how bad the teachings of the religion under attack are, and how good the others.

This situation, reminiscent of 19th-century legislative debates about the supposed ills of the Catholic Church, captures precisely the sort of divisiveness in politics that institutional separation aims to avoid. Only this time it will probably not be Catholicism in the dock but something else -- Islam, say, or polytheistic Hinduism, or some religion so new that it still seems like a cult. The framers' innovation of nonestablishment was designed so that the sovereign people should not spend their legislative sessions debating the relative merits of different faiths and their compatibility with American values. That is a recipe for real and deep division.

The tradition of institutional separation that must be reasserted goes beyond blocking money for religious schools. All attempts to use government resources to institutionalize religious practices countermand the American tradition of nonestablishment, grounded historically in the belief that government has no authority over religious matters. When government pays for social programs through the rubric of charitable choice, the programs must not be ones that rely on faith to accomplish their goals -- or else the government is institutionally sponsoring the religious mission of the church in question. This is also why the state itself must not compose or mandate public prayers, which then take on the shape of state-imposed religious exercises in a way that is very different from voluntary prayers chosen and led by individuals in public contexts. The founding father James Madison himself understood that paying the chaplains of the House and Senate out of the public till was a constitutional anomaly, and he wisely, if belatedly, suggested that the members of Congress ought to pay for their services from their own pockets.

Surprising as it may at first sound, the changes from existing laws and practices that I'm advocating have a realistic chance of being adopted and even embraced by values evangelicals. It may already be possible to glimpse a growing recognition among values evangelicals that voucher programs do not necessarily promote common values but may do just the opposite. The ballooning of school-voucher programs that some expected in the wake of the Supreme Court's 2002 decision holding them constitutional has not come to pass. Faith-based charities have not yet managed to crowd out secular service providers, although more extensive government financing for faith-based social services remains a stated goal of the Bush administration. Given that voucher programs have not spread, it should be relatively easy for values evangelicals to abandon them -- especially since they will be getting something in return, namely greater recognition and acceptance for their values-based arguments and the corresponding symbols of public religion.

Government financing of religion is, after all, a relative latecomer to the ideology of values evangelicalism. The movement from the start drew its energy from symbolic questions of culture and morality, not from any desire to see a merger of church and state. Catholics may have pressed hard from within the movement to make vouchers an important issue, but even they turn out to be relying little on those voucher programs for educating their own children; the voucher students in Catholic schools in Milwaukee or Cleveland are heavily inner-city non-Catholics. Evangelicals should also be prepared to acknowledge the historical fact that our constitutional tradition, flawed though it assuredly is, has always made institutional separation the touchstone of nonestablishment.

VII. THE EXPERIMENT REVISITED
The proposal is a simple one -- and it looks backward to history in order to look forward. If we could be more tolerant of sincere religious people drawing on their beliefs and practices to inform their choices in the public realm, and at the same time be more vigilant about preserving our legacy of institutional separation between government and organized religion, the shift would redirect us to the uniqueness of the American experiment with church and state. Until the rise of legal secularism, Americans tended to be accepting of public, symbolic manifestations of faith. Until values evangelicalism came on the scene, Americans were on the whole insistent about maintaining institutional separation. These two modern movements respectively reversed both those trends.

The novelty of these developments does not mean they are wrong, of course. But in an America grown so religiously diverse that it can no longer easily be called ''Judeo-Christian,'' we need to learn from our history if we are to have any hope of constructing a single nation that will endure. Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus will have to join Protestants, Catholics, Jews and atheists in finding a resolution to our church-state problem that all can embrace. A solution that will work for our generation must bind us to the past. But like all successful nation-building, it will work only if it also sets a foundation for our future.

Topic of the Week - The Christian Right, The Supreme Court Nominee and Laura Bush

2005-07-02T08:05:00.000-05:00

OK - D-Day day is here. Our country is at THE turning point. Over the next two to three months, are you ready to challenge, aggressively challenge, the conservative policies that have been brewing and will come to the immediate forefront of our judicial branch? Trust me - the Christian Right is ready, and they have launched their letter writing campaigns, door-to-door campaigns and phone campaigns already...they started yesterday.

These primary conservative issues are; outlawing abortion, a constitutional amendment on defining marriage between a man and woman and incorporating religion, prayer & "faith" into our public educational systems, public forums and public places. With Sandra Day O'Connor retiring and Chief Justice Rehnquist expected to retire (after naming the replacement for O'Connor), the next two to three months will define the future of our country, actually the future of our world, and the future of each and everyone of your personal lives. This is not an overstatement.

The question is - will you personally contribute and be an activist in writing letters (snail mail please) to your representatives in Congress over the next few weeks in requesting a moderate nominee (forget about requesting a liberal nominee - it will not happen) to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court? More importantly - besides writing Congress, I encourage you to write a letter to Laura Bush.

Why Laura?

I have seen an inner conflict with George Bush throughout his Presidency. After 9/11, Bush reverted to his faith and incorporated this faith into his leadership agenda in fighting terrorism. And along with Cheney, Rove, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, etc., they pushed their radical conservative agenda to "rid the world of evil" and "stay the courseno matter the consequences" on fighting terrorism...and saw the opportunity to incorporate their conservative agenda across the entire public and political spectrum. Hence, George's focus on his faith and "preventing" terrorism eventually resulted in his rational to invade Iraq. And of course, Cheney & Co. had tremendous influence and defined the course on this hegemony strategy.

However, over the last 12 months, as the media and the American people have been vocal on the travesty of the Iraq invasion as well as vocal against the other actions by this regime to push their conservative agenda (i.e. social security, Schiavo case, etc.), and as the pressure mounts, I have seen Bush even more conflicted (and confused) than ever before. George Bush may be a bit more shrewd than we give him credit for, but his emotional intelligence is that of an adolescence, at best a young adult, in trying to sort out and define his value system foundation in alignment with his leadership characteristics.

Let me clarify this last statement on Bush's emotional maturity. Most people who have gone through major personl transformations in their lives, who have become 'dry' and/or a born again Christian, do so because their lives were out of control for many, many years prior and thus, they need some sort of stability to adhere to. Although understandable and respectful on a whole, this 'clinging' aspect specific to a strict religious belief to secure their foundation & stability is basically a 'child-like' emotional action. And one's out of control stage in his life slows down, halts, and at times regresses personal development of one's emotional and intellectual parts of their brain - ask any expert in the psychological industry. George Bush's emotional and intellectual maturity has been stunted throughout a period of almost 20 years of his adulthood (age 21 years to age 40 years) when at age 40, Bush stopped drinking and became a born-again "Christian."

Because of this 20 year gap in personal development, I have seen continual mixed messages on his leadership characteristics with respect to many social and foreign policy issues; his stance on Gays and civil liberties, on pro-choice, on education, on world poverty and other issues. George has an internal conflict and a continual 'sorting-out' of his value system, and I believe he has a continual external conflict between his allegiance to the conservative/religious movement and his devotion to Laura and her personal value system.

I firmly believe Laura has significant influence with George on the policies of pro-choice, gay marriage/civil liberties, poverty and education...and Laura is much less conservative than seemingly George is. Being George's wife, this influence, on these all important policy issues is much greater than the media or the American people think...or give her credit for. Although Laura is very careful about voicing her opinion and stance publicly, there has been evidence of her more moderate position(s) on abortion and gay marriage/civil unions.

Respective of the abortion issue, see the transcript below from Katie Couric's interview with Laura Bush on The Today Show dating back to January 19, 2001 - many people do not realize this, but Laura is pro-choice.

Also, George and Laura's response on the gay marriage/civil union issue and as demonstrated in the interview with Charles Gibson of ABC the week before the election. George acknowledged his support of gay civil unions while Charles responded "this is against the Republican platform," and Bush countered "I know this but I believe in these rights of civil unions." For your information, this was not the message(s) George had given prior on this issue in multiple public comments but in this interview with Charles, and when put on the spot, George's internal conflict and confusion reacts...George is really a confused individual.

Also take note in the Charles Gibson interview, Charles asked Laura her position on a constitutional amendment on defining marriage and Laura said she sees it as an issue that people want to talk about. "I'm not really sure about it. I think it's important to have the debate." Laura was uncomfortable with the question only in that she wanted to answer it truthfully...I could see she wanted to support gay rights but was careful not to publicly voice it.

Here is the link to the summary of the interview with Charles Gibson - http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=193746&page=1 and below is the actual transcript of Katie Couric's interview portion with Laura on the abortion issue when Laura revealed she is pro-choice.

January 19, 2001:

COURIC: Let's talk about abortion, because it's very much been in the news with
the John Ashcroft confirmation hearings this week. Do you personally believe
women in this country should have a legal right to an abortion?

Ms. BUSH: Well, I think that--that we should do what we can to limit the number
of abortions, to try to reduce the number of abortions in a lot of ways. And
that is by talking about responsibility with girls and boys, by teaching
abstinence, having abstinence classes everywhere, in schools, and in churches,
and in Sunday schools. I think there are a lot of ways we can reduce the
number of abortions, and I agree with my husband in that--on that issue.

COURIC: But having said that, Mrs. Bush, should women, in spite, because
they're not mutually exclusive, even if you do advocate those things, do you
believe that women in this country should have the right to an abortion?

Ms. BUSH: I agree with my husband that we should try to reduce the number of
abortions in our country by doing all those things.

COURIC: Should Roe v. Wade, for example, be overturned?

Ms. BUSH: No, I'm don't think it should be overturned.

Anyone beginning to see that Laura may be the key to influencing her husband on this all important Supreme Court nomination(s)? I firmly believe that Laura Bush is the person to target and appeal to in order to help influence her husband on nominating a moderate to replace O'Connor...and eventually replace Rehnquist. Appealing to Laura's support of women (pro-choice), her support to have separation of church & state and appeal to her benevolence of the gay community against the orchestrated and very organized hate campaign by The Christian Right to define homosexuality as a sin. Obviously, Laura has more influence over George than anyone...all of us happily married men know this to be true.

Laura can make a difference here - please write a letter (snail mail please) to her asking her to be supportive of these issues...to help guide her husband to a moderate nominee that will define the state of our country for years and years to come. Laura's address is as follows:

The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

The White House Phone Numbers

VOICE:
202-456-1414

TTY/TDD:
202-456-6213
Comment Line

202-456-2121
Visitors Office

FAX:
202-456-2461

EMAIL - first.lady@whitehouse.gov

Thank you for considering this action. Click below to post your comments but more importantly, write Laura Bush a letter, or at least email her. It will make a difference.

Topic of the Week - The Christian Right and The Ten Commandments

2005-06-28T04:36:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, a key ruling regarding separation of church & state by the U.S. Supreme Court ended its term. In a 5-4 decision, the justices rejected the Ten Commandments displays in two Kentucky Court Houses but at the same time on the grounds of the Texas capital in Austin, the justices ruled on a 5-4 decision and allowed the Ten Commandments to remain - what?? Although we, those united for the separation of church & state, applaud the ruling on removing the Ten Commandments from the Kentucky court house, we question the rational by our Supreme Court to allow the Ten Commandments to be displayed at state capitals - if there is a distinct line between church and state in this country, this seems to blur this line.

Our country is at one of the most critical turning points in history in heading down a path where our policy issues are attempting to be reformed to reflect a conservative foundation. Within this conservative foundation is an incredible, organized effort to unify Church & State by The Christian Right in attempting to leverage our Constitution as a basis that our country was founded as a Christian country.

The Christian Right has used this strategy very effectively through media sources. They have taken a secular document and have pulled piece after piece out of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and re-interpret and promote a stance to reinforce their position. In addition, they have defined secularism as humanism and humanism as a religion ... and thus, use Christian principles and ethics established by our founding fathers as a way to "fight" and support their position that Christianity (in their form) should be incorporated into public policy, public education and public place because Christianity is the true basis of our government, not the "religion" of secularism/humanism.

Herein lies the distinction(s):- All religions (or almost all) have an underpinning belief of an afterlife - defined simply as life after death. Secularism is not humanism. And secularism in our government doctrine is focused on human life as we know it on this earth, within our country. The Christian Right tries to classify secularism as humanism and humanism as a religion. This is not so.

In addition, with religion based on striving for an afterlife, most religions, especially the Christian Right's religion, defines the afterlife as either heaven or hell. Thus, this then leads to a tendency to tap into people's highest fears and anxieties - whether or not they will go to paradise or burn in hell.

What the Religious Right doesn't tell people, and what tragically many Americans apparently don't know, is that when it comes to determining what the laws of the United States mean, the only document that matters is the Constitution. The Constitution, a completely secular document, contains no references to God, Jesus or Christianity. It says absolutely nothing about the United States being officially Christian. The Religious Right's constant appeals to documents like the Declaration of Independence, which contains a deistic reference to "the Creator," and preceded the Constitution by nine years, cloud the issue and make some people believe their rights spring from these other documents.

Many governments believe in the union of church & state and one could strongly argue these governments (i.e. Saudi Arabia) do not support civil liberties, personal choice and freedom of speech and press. So, lets go back to the ruling Monday of the Ten Commandments -- What do you think of our highest court's decisions? Click below to post your comments.

Topic of the Week - Father's Day, Father George Bush and The Christian Right

2005-06-20T07:10:00.000-05:00

Reflecting on Father's Day yesterday, it reminded me of George Lakoff's book "Don't Think of an Elephant" respective of the different value systems between The Christian Right Conservatives and basically the rest of the country. Specifically, the focus of The Christian Right on how to define morality and what is the one and only true definition of family (and government) specific to their values. Note - the following description of the value system of Conservatives and The Christian Right are not necessarily those of the Republican Party but of the conservative faction within the Republican Party who have permeated our government.

It is important to be aware of these beliefs as it relates to the family and politics. If you recall, some of the most vocal and mobile political organizations of The Christian Right are 'family' organizations; Focus on the Family (founded by James Dobson) and The American Family Research Council (Tony Perkins, President). The Christian Right's primary focus and intent is to define what 'family' is and exude this belief system through our political system. Lets detail their value system and how it relates to our President George Bush.

The strict father model is the basis of The Christian Right Conservatives and a list of their assumptions are as follows:

- The world is a dangerous place, and it always will be, because there is evil out there in the world.
- The world is also difficult because it is competitive and there will always be winners and losers.
- There is an absolute right and an absolute wrong as defined by the father (not mother) of the family.
- Children are born bad, in the sense that they just want to do what feels good, not what is right, therefore they have to be made good.

What is needed, The Christian Right believe, is a strong strict father who can:

- Protect the family in this dangerous world
- Support the family in this dangerous world
- Teach the children right from wrong.

Lakoff continues "what is required of a child is obedience, because the strict father is the moral authority who knows right from wrong and obedience through punishment, painful physical punishment (spankings, sticks, belts, etc.) of their children when they do wrong. When children do something wrong, physical punishment teaches them not to repeat the wrongful behavior...this teaches them to act obedient and morally. Without such punishment, the world will go to hell and there will be no morality.

Such discipline has a secondary effect in that it is required for success in a competitive, difficult world. If people are disciplined and pursue their self interest in the land of opportunity, they will become prosperous and self reliant. Thus, the strict father model links morality with prosperity. This link is the pursuit of self-interest.

This is part of the reason why The Christian Right Conservatives are against nurturance and care. They are against social programs that take care of people. That is what they see as wrong. This is what they are trying to eliminate on moral grounds. It is not that The Christian Right are necessarily crazy, mean, stupid or greedy people as many of us believe...the scarier issue is that The Christian Right Conservatives believe morally that any social program is immoral, they believe the United States is the 'father' of the world, George Bush is the supreme father, and they believe in the moral pursuit of self-interest. People who have strict father morality who apply it to politics believe this is the only and right way to govern.

Sound or look familiar? Think about how this applies to "Father George Bush." The Christian Right Conservatives see George Bush as the symbol of their strict father morality. Both Bush and Conservatives see the the American people (and the world's people) as their children. Does a strict father ask their children what they should do or do they tell them? What the father says, the children do...and no back talk, complete obedience. Communication is only one-way. If you are a moral authority, you know what is right, you have power, and you use it. (i.e. Invasion of Iraq) George Bush and his regime, his Christian Right Conservative followers, see the United States as the moral authority of the world who knows the right thing to do and the rest of the world is to be obedient and follow along without questioning it.

Have you ever noticed during press conferences how George Bush speaks? He does not speak in 'we' terms, always 'I'...'I am going to cut social security,' 'I am going to lower taxes,' etc. -- this is the strict father morality. The 'father' makes the rules and it is not a 'we,' collaborative leadership. One of the many problems with this type of leadership is that America is a democracy, not an authoritarian regime...and we are not children, but we are adults.

Progressives, on the other hand, believe in a collaborative type of foundation for a family where both parents, not just the father, are involved in nurturing and directing their children - it is gender neutral. Both parents are equally responsible for raising their children. The assumption is that children are born good (not bad) and can be made better. Nurturance is defined as empathy and responsibility. Empathy requires protection...from drugs, environmental destruction, from poisonous additives in food, worker protection, consumer protection, disease protection and safety protection (crime, terrorism, etc.). Nurturance as responsibility in the form of you seek fulfillment and happiness in life, therefore it is your moral responsibility to be a happy, fulfilled person and it is your responsibility to teach your child how to be happy and fulfilled.

Are you beginning to see the difference in value systems between The Christian Right Conservatives and the rest of the population? Although much more complicated, the foundation of The Christian Right Conservatives is a strict father morality who defines what is right and what is wrong and unquestionably acts upon this definition. Do you see why Time Magazine entitled this growing momentum of values and beliefs as "Re-framing Reality" when naming Bush person of the year back in December?

Again, this is not necessarily what the Republican Party believes on a whole...but it is what this conservative regime believes...and acts upon. Approximately 1/3 of the population has this Christian Right/Conservative belief system...a minority but a powerful minority who helped put their "Father" in power as the leader of the free world last November.

This 1/3 of the population, The Christian Right Conservatives, most likely cannot be persuaded to see the world as a place "where we are all in this together," it is the other 2/3's of the population we have to help raise awareness within so this re-framing of reality does not continue to spread. We, as Americans, need to be aware of this belief system within our political system on a grass roots level, a state level and a federal level come the mid-term elections in 2006. Most important.

Any comments? Post your comments below.

Topic of the Week - The Christian 'Whites'

2005-06-12T08:44:00.000-05:00

Recent 'controversy' as reported by the media on Howard Dean's comments on how the Republican Party has turned into a party of White Christian Men is somewhat interesting to comment upon. Dean's comments were as follows "The Republicans are not very friendly to different kinds of people. They're a pretty monolithic party. They pretty much all behave the same, they all look the same... It's pretty much a white Christian party." Is this not a fairly accurate statement? Over the past fifteen years, when you combine it with the fact that whites have shrunk from 89% of the electorate in 1976 to just 77% in 2004, you can get a sense of just how quickly the white Christian percentage of the population is shrinking. As they shrink in size, they have voted more and more for Republicans.

Do you think it is coincidence that in the 70's the Democratic Party's base was the southern U.S. and Great Plains and now is predominantly Republican? Today, based on a strategic, focused initiative beginning over 30 years ago, the Republican Party sought out white, Evangelical Christian voters and then promoted the specific religious views of the Evangelical Christians into their public policy issues. Basically, the Republican Party realized the only way to reach middle class America, was through religious (disguised as social) issues. Whereas the southern U.S. and Great Plains felt victims of economic consequence in the past, the Republicans have convinced these same people they are victims of religious persecution here in the United States.

Now today, we are experiencing one of the most dangerous transformation elements ever...a very united, organized effort by the majority of the Republican Party, at the federal, state and local level, in incorporating the Evangelical Christian belief system into our public policies...with an attempt to define morality for the American populace according to this belief system. Diversity, once embraced by our country, is now narrowed and interpreted as ethnic diversity...religious diversity as framed within our constitution, is now attempting to be compromised by incorporating one religious belief system into our public policies.

I watched a short debate this morning on CNN between Peter Sprigg, Senior Director of Policy Studies of the American Family Research Council (Evangelical Christian Political Organization) and Barry Lynn, Executive Director of Americans United for Separation of Church & State.

Barry Lynn simply stated that within our country, there are 10,000 different religious groups, 20 million non-believers and how their organization is simply supporting the intent of our founding fathers - to look for commonly shared, constitutionally based values in our political system and process, not differing views that stem from different religious beliefs. To look for equal justice under law, respect for individual choice and not have religious views imposed on individuals. Makes sense, doesn't it?

Peter Sprigg, however, argued that all political issues stem from moral values and the American Research Family Council is only supporting values that are pro-family, in that we as Americans have always defined what a family is, a marriage between a man and woman where procreation is part of our natural order...so family is a mom, dad and children (Of course, this implies that same sex couples with or without children as well as heterosexual couples who elect not to have children are not considered moral). And Peter went on to state how the Christians' rights have been violated for many years and how they are simply trying to get their rights accepted into our policies. What?

Has this country not allowed Evangelical Christians to practice their religious beliefs? Unless I missed something, isn't that the basis for support of religion in this country? Simply, to allow for an individual or a group to practice their religious beliefs?

The victim mentality...sounds like the white Republican Evangelical Christians are playing the same card they like to attack for those who benefit from social programs (welfare, public housing, etc.). So, The Christian 'Whites' and The Christian Rights seem to be one in the same. Hasn't the Republican Party morphed into a party that pledges allegiance to the cross rather than to the American flag?

Once again, Howard Dean seems to be on target in that Republicans are the White Christian party. Diversity is almost non-existent...

Agree? Disagree? Post your comments below.

Topic of the Week - The Conservative 'Pick-pockets'

2005-06-05T09:36:00.000-05:00

A majority of us can see "stuff" clearly - we can see what is happening within this country and how we have been on the wrong track since 2000. Fortunately, this awareness is gaining momentum with the majority of the population (i.e. Bush's approval rating is the lowest of any incumbent ever in the history of the U.S.).

A quick comment - isn't this pathetic? We are stuck with a President, only seven months after the election who claimed a "mandate" in his victory speech, who has sunk to the lowest level in public confidence ever...only seven months into his second term! This, at a time, where consumer confidence in our economy is a bit (only a bit) stronger in the prior five years of his tenure and indicators are somewhat positive over the short-term (6-12 months)...as we know, a significant factor driving the approval rating of an American President is the health of our economy. And again, with this economy (in a state better than the prior five years), we have an incumbent whose approval rating is the worst of all time. Pathetic, and we are stuck with this for another three and half years. Hopefully, Congress and the American people can keep this regime in check so we are not in a state of utter economic and social chaos in 2008...hopefully. OK...on to the topic of the week.

This week's topic is not necessarily for those who see reality clearly but for those (The Christian Right/Conservatives) who do not and how these people are stuck on "hot-button" social issues at the expense of their own personal pocket-book. A study just released today by the New York Times of a computer model based on the Treasury Department's model, as well as consulting with experts at the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute and Citizens for Tax Justice, on the effects of the tax cuts on various income groups outline the growing gap between the ultra-rich and the rest of Americans. All stated this model the NY Times utilized was reliable. The findings of this study?

- Under the Bush tax cuts, the 400 taxpayers with the highest incomes (a minimum income level of $87 million annually and higher), now pay income, Medicare and Social Security taxes amounting to virtually the same percentage of their incomes as people making $50-$75,000 annually.
- Those earning $10 million or more in income annually now pay a lesser share of their income in these taxes than those making $100,000 to $200,000.
- The Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), created 36 years ago to make sure the very richest paid taxes, takes back a majority of tax cuts over time from the majority of families earning $75,000 to $1 million -- far fewer compared to the very wealthiest and how they will be affected by this tax.
- Comparing the ultra rich (top one hundredth of one percent) earned an additional $18,000 for every ONE dollar earned by the bottom 90 percent of Americans between 1990 and 2002.
- Although the Bush administration claims the tax cuts have made the income tax system more progressive, more equitable, the Internal Revenue Service found that only taxpayers whose share of taxes declined in 2001 and 2002 were those in the top 0.1 percent.
- The Times analysis shows that over the next decade, the tax cuts Bush wants to extend indefinitely, would shift the burden further from the richest Americans. With incomes of more than $1 million, this income group would get the biggest share of the tax breaks, in total amounts and in the drop in their share of federal taxes paid.

Surprised Christian Right's and Conservatives? What is most interesting is that many Christian Right's and Conservatives are not surprised and are actually in support of this discrepancy and favoritism of the ultra-rich. Why? As long as these people feel they have a chance to get to the top (.01 percent of income), they just don't care how rich the rich are and ironically, they don't care they pay less taxes.

Think about this for a minute - as long as these Christian Right's and Conservatives think they can get to this level of income, which in approximate calculations of odds is a one in a million chance, yes one in a million chance of obtaining the ultra-rich status, they think it is OK for the rich to pay less in percentage tax than the bottom 90 percent of Americans. Do you know how naive this is? Again, you have a one in a million chance - you may as well play the lottery.

And, more consequential, do you know how selfish this thought process is? You Christian Right's and Conservatives think one is entitled to pay less in taxes because they have "made it." Why isn't it fair and equitable for the ultra-rich to pay the same percentage in taxes as everyone else? I have to say you Christian Right's and Conservatives' thought process is not very "Christian." It is about as self-serving as it comes.

Also - the Times reports that Warren Buffet (hero to Republicans and Conservatives, Alan Greenspan (probably most respected Federal Reserve Chair ever), George Soros (hated by Conservatives) and Ted Turner all warn that such a concentration of wealth can turn a meritocracy into an aristocracy and ultimately stifle economic growth by putting too much of the nation's capital in the hands of inheritors rather than strivers and innovators. Greenspan stated "For the democratic society, that is not a very desirable thing to allow to happen."

One last comment - economic mobility (upwards) - moving from one income group to another over a lifetime - has actually stopped rising in the U.S. and some recent studies suggest it has even declined over the last generation...yes declined.

Christian Right's and Conservatives, do you actually think this is good for our Country? Do you not see that the Conservative regime and constituents in Washington D.C. are picking your pocketbooks clean? Try to take a half step back and reflect a bit on this. And post your comments and give a counter-view (if you have one). Those that see this all too clearly, post comments if you like but you/I know this scenario all to well and this week's topic of the week is simply preaching to you, the choir.

Click below to post any comments.

Topic of the Week - America's Focus

2005-05-29T12:58:00.000-05:00

The last few weeks I have been very sharp in my rhetoric on The Christian Right (their brain, political correctness, evolution vs. intelligent design...). Whenever Extremism rears its ugly head, I have a tendency to attack it head on. That being said, I do believe views on the extreme left and extreme right need to be heard and there is a political forum for this dialogue. However, when one tries to incorporate religion into our political system, there should be no political forum - period. If one cares to debate this, please go ahead and post your comments on this blog.

Continuing on this theme of a political forum for discussion and debate, it occurs to me we should frame the debate in a way that keeps us focused. That is, frame the political debate on issues, values and actions that are about politics, not about religion. The religious "noise" has no room in our political system, but our focus has been primarily on these issues. I, for one, have been guilty of this lack of focus. I think we need to frame reality in our political system to what the intent has always been...let me explain.

Approximately 30 years ago, the Religious Right was making noise politically through Jerry Falwell, Jim & Tammy Baker and others....their religious beliefs were so conservative most educated people did not give them credence politically...but the birth of Evangelism, through mass media, had begun. At this time, the Republican Party was struggling to define their identity with the masses and their elitism was hurting its efforts at a grass roots level. Therein the birth of The Christian Coalition in 1987 and its mission to bring politics and religious beliefs together at the grass roots level to persuade (and manipulate) the conservative Christians by aligning with the Republican party. And money...a lot of money was allocated to fund Republicans across the spectrum.

If you question the political aim and funding behind The Christian Coalition, which extends to today's Christian Right into organizations we know as Focus on the Family, Family Research Council, etc. Think about this for a moment...can anyone name one Democrat that is funded by a Christian organization, specifically The Christian Coalition or any other Christian organization that is active in politics? No, I doubt you can. So, the Republican Party and the Christian Coalition aligned together to meld the Republican Party (or a significant part of the Republican Party) to what we know currently...a party that is actually funded and is incorporating religion into our political system. Don't act too surprised, it has been the intent all along, and we have silently allowed this to happen.

So unfortunately, the noise we hear daily made by Christian organizations and Republican politicians on stem cell research, gay marriage, 'culture of life,' the liberal media, etc, etc., is actually a very organized coalition attempting to transform public policy in manipulating a significant percentage of the populace who are focused on incorporating religious beliefs within our political system...all the while these 'Christians' are voting and supporting politicians who are affecting themselves adversely...through economic policy, domestic policy and foreign policy.

Where is the focus? Take a hard look at our country today. Where are we? Our national debt is at catastrophic levels where top tier nations are reducing their investment in America. Our "brand," meaning our standing in the world, is at an all time low which trickles down to American made goods & services realizing more buying resistance than ever before. The amount of personal debt is at an all time high. The gap between the elite wealthy (top one percent) and the rest of the populace is at an all time high. Our educational system continues to fall in quality each year when compared to other first world nations. The American worker is not has hungry (motivated) as our counterparts in Asia and other emerging countries throughout the world. Our military is so depleted...spread so thin that the active, reserves and guard are continually being shipped back to Iraq and other parts of the world after completing their military service time...and the military is now consistently missing their recruiting goals (in March, the Army missed its goal by 27 percent).

We are focused on cultural issues while the world is passing us by...actually worse. The World is beginning to look down on America and see our country as vulnerable in the industries we used to dominate (technology, auto, telecommunications...) You don't believe it? Read the Wall Street Journal, the top business magazines (especially The Economist), the New York Times, CNBC, FOX news and begin to pay attention to those people whose job it is to evaluate, study, report and assess our standing in the world economically, culturally and militarily. In short five years, our country has gone from Super Power with good standing across the world, to vulnerable, arrogant, distrustful...with an approval rating, both domestically and with foreign nations as the lowest of any regime in recent history.

It seems to me that we, the American people, need to get focused on the real issues...immediately.

To post comments, click below.

Topic of the Week - Un-Reframing Reality

2005-05-22T15:43:00.000-05:00

On December 27, 2004, Time Magazine named George W. Bush Person of the Year...subtitled "America's Revolutionary." In naming Bush Person of the Year, Time Magazine focused its feature to how George Bush is reframing reality in America. How religion and conservatism are changing the way America believes, acts, thinks and what we value as acceptable as a culture. We, as Americans, the article continues are embracing this change...

The media, on a whole, continues to buy into this crap. On the front page of the Wall Street Journal this past Friday, May 20, 2005, the lead caption in the "World-Wide" column stated:

"STEM CELLS JOINED judges in widening Congress's partisan divide." "Talks to avert a shutdown over filibustering of judicial nominees continued, with a bipartisan group of moderates saying a deal is in reach. But rhetoric in the Senate became more unyielding, and groups including religious conservatives plan an ad blitz against any compromise hindering a Republican effort to remake the federal bench. Religious politics also figure in House debate on a bill to ease funding of embryonic stem-cell work. It could pass, thus forcing Bush into an unpopular veto."

Take a minute and read this lead caption again. The second largest circulated newspaper in America acknowledges religious conservatives and religious politics as part of our political process now...does anyone see how wrong this is? Our media, inclusive of the NY Times, Washington Post, CNN, and the other mainstream media write news reports on the interweaving of religious fundamentalism into our political process as if this is OK. As if our system now accepts religion and politics as a blend.

At Fran Liebowitz's performance last week, when Fran stated that "where this is no religion in politics, there is progress...and the opposite is true." When Fran stated this, I sensed confusion in the air. People in the audience actually were somewhat uncomfortable by Fran's statements although history supports her very claim.

I attended a seminar this past Monday on the Patriot Act and how it is affecting our Libraries in having to disclose, if subpoenaed, the identity of anyone who checks out any book. Senator Mark Dayton of Minnesota was one of the featured speakers and after delivering a very eloquent speech, Senator Dayton opened-up the floor to questions. The first question asked Senator Dayton if the Patriot Act will continue after its deadline of December 31, 2005, the questionnaire asked "are we stuck with it?" Senator Dayton when on to say that it is almost a certainty that the Patriot Act will continue after discussion and debate this Fall in Congress. I watched the room and almost everyone acknowledged by nodding their head this acceptance of continuation. Many questions were asked on how do we as citizens deal with the Patriot Act...what should we know as citizens so we are more informed about this law.

Coincidentally, I raised my hand and it was announced my question would be the last for Senator Dayton. Everyone gave Senator Dayton an ovation for attending and for his continued fight for our civil liberties and his personal challenge against the Patriot Act. Senator Dayton is truly one of the good ones. However, I had enough.

I needed to ask the very question that was pounding in my head. I started "Senator Dayton, the first question to you this morning asked you directly if the Patriot Act is here to stay...if we are stuck with it after December 31, 2005. It seems to me the follow-up questions were not about challenging the very Act itself but how do we as citizens deal with it, what do we have to be aware of. This troubles me, Senator Dayton. You, yourself acknowledged it will continue. It does not seem to me that our thinking in this room is how to challenge it and stop it from continuing after December 31, 2005. I acknowledge we live in a post 9-11 world, but I really have a hard time understanding how the Patriot Act is good for me as a citizen."

"So tell us in this room, Senator Dayton, give us some reason to support this Act - tell us what detail(s) specifically in the Patriot Act are for the good of us citizens, protects our civil liberties and freedom of speech. Not in general but an actual detail or two. I have read a portion of the Act and skimmed much of it, but I cannot find one detail that is truly good for us citizens and our civil liberties. Please give us one or two."

Well, Senator Dayton answered as best he could...however, he acknowledged he has not read the Patriot Act in its entirety. To his credit, Senator Dayton stated he will be fighting against it and fighting to change the clauses within the Act that affect our civil liberties. He actually stated that he thought following the money was a good thing in allowing government to solicit anyone's bank records...although Senator Dayton sated that President Nixon had him audited back in the 1970's after Dayton accused Nixon of lying...so Senator Dayton retracted this statement and said he wasn't necessarily accepting of following the money. He politely ended his answer by thanking everyone and then departing out the back (which to his defense this was announced before my question that he would be departing immediately afterwards).

What's my point of all this? I believe we need to un-reframe this "reality" that the media and us as Americans seemingly accept as OK. That we are in an age where religious conservatives and our political leaders are actually allowing debate on religious beliefs as part of public policy. That we as citizens actually seem to be silent when religion is being initiated into our political system whether it be at a federal level, a state level or a grass roots level. Silence is consent? I hope not people.

My request to everyone is to consider posting one topic, one issue that has actually either been voted on as a bill and/or is being attempted to be heard on either the Senate or House floor (federal or state) and/or you are experiencing in your backyard as part of your city council that has a religious group's backing or a religious or conservative overtone within it...help create this awareness for anyone reading this blog on the many, many initiatives that we are seemingly accepting as part of our reality in America today. Click on this link to post one issue where you see this reframing of reality initiated by conservatives and The Christian Right and how it is wrong - http://christianwrong.blogspot.com/

Maybe posting some of these religious initiatives will help us open our eyes a bit and motivate you to get involved somehow...whether it be as a volunteer to organizations committed to fight separation of church and state, donate money to organizations fighting for the separation of church and state, attend a fundraiser for a candidate that values separation of church and state, write your local politicians and media and put pressure on them to fight for the separation of church and state and/or simply speak out in discussion of politics with a friend, family member or colleague on how this acceptance of melding church and state is wrong

The Christian Right (and America) and Political Correctness

2005-05-15T17:03:00.000-05:00

I attended in person last evening an interview on Minnesota Public Radio of Fran Liebowitz, the New York satirist. I left the interview feeling refreshed, actually feeling alive. Of course, it was most fun in that most of Fran's viewpoints and opinions rang true with mine. But more thrilling was the fact it has been at least 5-6 years since I experienced a public figure who actually was not full of bullshit. One who is so political correct that you leave feeling uninspired...and most times these days when one leaves a comedic performance, or has an interpersonal discussion on politics, one needs to head home to take a shower to wash off the "milk-toast." Most often, there is no substance or passion behind the opinions anymore.

Political correctness is so out of hand these days that it is rare one can have fun attending a comedic performance. Thank God for Fran Liebowitz (and no pun intended).

It got me thinking what a boring world we live in currently. Where one is so timid to speak an opinion out of nervousness that others will strike them down with a lightning bolt from God. The piety in America is "gut-wrenching"...

I miss the 90's - the days of Seinfeld where stereotypes were not only laughed at by others, but by those whose stereotypes pertained to themselves. Stereotypes were adored.

So my thought on this week's topic of the week is to put aside political correctness for just one week - lets get back to progressive values, culture, art, humanity...where the differences in people are not only welcome but beloved. Lets build a list of NON-political correctness on the Blog this week. I ask you to post a NON-political correct statement....or react and respond to a few of my favorite Fran Liebowitz comments from last evening. Here are some of Fran's gems:

1. Where there is no religion in government, there is progress in this world...and the exact opposite. Look around and really evaluate and take a hard look at countries where religion is not predominant in government....look at America in the 90's. Was there a more progressive and expansive time...expansive economically, expansive culturally, expansive educationally, expansive benevolently, expansive intellectually and expansive spiritually than throughout the 90's - will someone challenge this comment?

2. The South is more ignorant and repressive than the Northern States - period. Almost all educational level test scores are lower in the South, the number of Fortune 500 corporate headquarters located in the North vs. South is drastic, the number of divorces in the South are much higher, the median household income (which tends to correlate to intellect) is lower in the South, the number of The Christian Right Churches and "mega-Churches" are more predominant in the South...want me to go on and on? On a whole, this is an accurate statement. I challenge anyone to dispute this comment and show me how the South, in general, is more intelligent than the North.

3. The Christian Right are fools - without stating this directly, Fran implied this throughout the first part of the interview last evening. Lets see...the Christian Right believe gay people are sinners and gay marriage is a sin although Jesus Christ never taught this - isn't Jesus Christ the basis for Christianity? (Lets move on in that I have beaten this ignorance to death on previous posts on this Blog). The Christian Right believe that being brain dead constitutes being alive. The Christian Right believe that abortion is wrong but capital punishment is right. The Christian Right believe this country was founded as a religious nation and that church and state should be unified. The Christian Right believe that the Man should be the head of the household and be the authoritative disciplinarian while the Woman should be subservient. Want me to go on? The issue below on The Christian Right as fools in respect to Evolution vs. Intelligent Design needs a paragraph on its own (see below).

4. The Christian Right do not believe in Evolution but rather in that God Almighty created the world in a structure and life form similar to the world we live in today. This is believed on faith alone, without fact. However, Scientists throughout the ages have proven Evolution to be part of human evolvement...and instead The Christian right believe in "Intelligent Design" (ID) and that humans did not evolve but instead were made with a stroke from only a Christian God's hand. Although if one really thought this ID theory through, one may come to the conclusion that IF there was no evolution and God created man and this entire world with a stroke of his or her hand, couldn't one counter that human being's brains have evolved over time...that human beings have evolved and progressed to such extent we can fly spacecraft to the planet Mars and take specimens and photographs of evidence of other life forms. So, in order for humans to progress to the point in order to invent the wheel, one of man's greatest inventions, to the point where we are flying spacecraft to Mars, wouldn't it make sense that humans have evolved over time, that our brains have evolved to such degree from generation to generation...doesn't this constitute some logic for the theory of evolution? Can your brain separate logic from faith? Probably not.

I am going to stop here because once again I am getting feisty this week and attacking The Christian Right.

OK - What NON-political correct statements can you list on the Blog? Or, what counter claims can you make that are NON-politically correct to Fran Leibowitz (and my) statements above? Its easy...it can be simple as "The Irish are drunkards...and one could argue the Irish enjoy life more because of it." Christian Right's - take your swipe at the "flaming liberals" and give us some NON-political correct statements. I know you have it stirred inside you - come on, I dare you.

Click below and post your own NON-political correct statement. Again, I dare all of you.

Topic of the Week - The Christian Right and Their Brain

2005-05-09T07:39:00.000-05:00

I watched a news segment on CNN Sunday morning studying the brains of teenagers in relation to their driving habits. How teenagers tend to be more aggressive and take more risks while driving an automobile based on their brains not yet fully developed in that the synapse(s) in their brains have not completely connected in order to discern between reality and fantasy. The teens were unable to see how their risky behavior could affect the outcome....they were unable to see the "big picture" in their driving habits. Based on my experience, I would like to suggest there is a correlation to the average teenager's brain and a brain of a Christian Right individual.

This may sound like I am ridiculing The Christian Right - I am not. I am simply relating my experience on how The Christian Right's brain tends to work. Based on my observations, my weekly discussions and my weekly email exchanges between a number of conservatives and Christian Right individuals, I have seen and heard a pattern of behavior that supports my claim that The Christian Right's brain is not yet fully developed....let me explain further.

Our brains connect billions of synapses throughout childhood, adolescence and throughout the teen years in developing your thought process, your intellect, your belief system, etc. These experiences throughout these formative years form your reactions/actions to stress, your reactions/actions to emotional issues, your reactions/actions to how you parent, your reactions/actions to how you believe...all resulting in your value system and how your brain reacts and acts on specific issues.

When the media and political experts define the difference between conservatives/progressives and Christian Rights & other Christians/religious belief systems as value differences on issues specific to the differences in the contrast to belief systems, this is accurate. Based on these differences in values and beliefs, one can understand the polarization between the two sides. However, the media and political experts do not take it one step further and analyze the differences in how each group uses their brain...how their brains are formed in relation to their values and belief systems.

My experience leads me to the following conclusions on the brain(s) of The Christian Right:

- The brain of a Christian Right tends to focus on pieces of an issue, many times one piece of an issue when forming their opinion or beliefs as opposed to focusing on all pieces of an issue. An example? Review the postings from April 10th and April 17th on the 'Culture of Life'...how the Christian Right focuses primarily (only?) on two pieces, abortion and euthanasia, and tend to ignore or block-out other pieces of the 'Culture of Life' respective to the death penalty, loss of life because of war and stem cell research.

- The brain of a Christian Right tends to focus, and continues to focus and support their stance no matter how the outcome of the action may have dire consequences. An example? The Christian Right continue to steadfastly support the Bush administration for invading Iraq, and The Christian Right is unable to acknowledge how this invasion is hurting our economy ($200 billion+ in costs), hurting our stature in the world, hurting (actually killing) our soldiers and Iraqi citizens, hurting our fight against terrorism in that the Iraq invasion has mobilized and created a fervor across the Islam culture in fighting against the U.S., etc. The Christian Right only see the invasion as a "good" thing and again, they will not acknowledge the "bad" things related to it.

- The brain of a Christian Right tends to have a foundation of fear that controls their belief system. An example? I could give you many examples on this one. But note how The Christian Right is petrified that homosexuals may couple and define their partnerships as marriage. What primary issue has mobilized and organized The Christian Right more than any other issue? The civil liberty mission of homosexuals. And if one evaluates the actions of The Christian Right, one would see a fear-based mentality to most, if not all of their beliefs and stance on specific issues.

- The brain of a Christian Right tends to exclude other values and beliefs...they cannot accept other religions and belief systems as valid. Their "faith" rules their behavior and tends to put aside validity of other religious or spiritual belief systems and/or other beliefs and values on specific issues associated to our public policies.

- The brain of a Christian Right tends to be of a "pack" mentality. Just as animals hunt in packs and teenagers tend to formulate packs to have an identity, The Christian Right tends to "hunt" in packs and take no prisoners. They also tend to form their identity as part of their group, usually church group, rather than have an identity of their own. Diversity? Most tend to stay, pray and entertain in their third and fourth ring suburban and rural areas and put "walls" up to other cultures, race and beliefs.

- The brain of a Christian Right tends to be of a victim mentality. Just as teenagers tend to cry they are victims when caught violating rules within their homes and within their communities, The Christian Right continually claims they are victims of government oppression when it comes to our entertainment media, our public policies, etc.

- The brain of a Christian Right tends to focus on what is only best for themselves. What is ironic is that they tend to claim they are more benevolent, humanists, charitable...my experience contrasts this claim. An example? When the Tsunami hit Southeast Asia, in general, progressives gave to charitable organizations coming to aid of the victims more than conservatives and The Christian Right.

- The brain of a Christian Right tends to exalt themselves above others based on their beliefs they are God's Chosen Ones. This can take form in their nationalism and patriotic claims and takes form in their Evangelism. I could go on and on and state numerous examples just on this specific part of The Christian Right brain...

The Christian Right tends to see the world in black & white, right & wrong...and their brains tend to only see their opinions and beliefs as right. They are unable to see the "gray" in life...the complexities that are involved in the many issues we face respective to both our domestic and foreign policies. You may want to be aware of the differences in brains when speaking with, observing or challenging The Christian Right - it may help (or not).

You may disagree with my experience on The Christian Right brain. If you agree or disagree, post your comments below.

Topic of the Week - The Christian Right and the Stealth Funding of Their Politicians

2005-05-01T08:07:00.000-05:00

This past week, as posted on the Blog, Microsoft Corporation retained Ralph Reed, former Director of The Christian Coalition, on their payroll paying him $20,000 per month. "Coincidentally," Microsoft made a decision NOT to support the bill in the Washington State Legislature proposed that would ban discrimination against gays and lesbians although they have publicly supported this bill in years past. What on earth has Reed been doing for Microsoft, one of the world's most powerful companies? Obviously, one could conclude that Microsoft's executive team were influenced by the Christian Right and seemingly Ralph Reed and his group to not support this bill.

So this begs the following questions...what, how much, from what specific sources, how does The Christian Right raise their money and who do they fund to push their agenda in attempting to transform public policy at a grass roots level, at a state level and at a federal level? Trust me, you would be astonished to know the level of organization, mobilization, sophistication and money The Christian Right has behind their politicians.

The Christian Right's politicians focus on the issues that inflame The Christian Right's belief systems; anti-gay platform, anti-abortion platform and incorporating Christianity into our public forum and public educational system. These politicians, aligned with The Christian Right, claim they are "victims" of persecution....and use this persecution claim to mobilize their friends, neighbors and family to raise money and push their agenda of melding Church & State at all levels. Victims? Give me a break.

I challenge everyone to invest some of your time in defining the politicians in your community and state who are funded by The Christian Right, what church organizations, what membership organizations and what companies (i.e. Microsoft) are funding The Christian Right. You only need to spend some time on the Internet and utilize Google's search capabilities - you will be surprised what you find out.

Then spread the word in your communities on how these politicians are accepting and taking money from organizations and companies with an agenda to transform our public policies specific to incorporating The Christian Right's religious beliefs into our political system. After identifying the organizations and companies funding The Christian Right, write your local newspaper and other news media outlets within your communities, and nationally, to publicize the money behind funding these conservative politicians.

Simply, make it public and heighten awareness on the politicians who are aligned with The Christian Right. It's time for action....

And of course, in addition to writing or calling the news media, publicize what you find by clicking below to post your comments on this Blog....

Microsoft & Ralph Reed, Former Director of The Christian Coalition

2005-04-27T14:33:00.000-05:00

This news release as reported on Media Post's web site today:

>From Media Post>

Okay, something we need to know today: Why was Ralph Reed, the former head of the Christian Coalition, on Microsoft's payroll for several years earning $20K a month? (Not a bad haul, not by a long shot.) And what, if anything, does Reed's work for Microsoft have to do with the company deciding not to come out in support of proposed legislation in Washington state that would ban discrimination against gays and lesbians? What on earth has Reed been doing for Microsoft, one of the world's most powerful companies - a company with vast resources and great talent? The software giant's antitrust imbroglio is over except for ongoing suits in various states.

The company is openly supportive of gay causes, committed to diversity, and has been proactive in creating internal policies that support gay rights. Does it seem just a wee bit incongruous to anyone else? In fact, Microsoft is often cited as one of the more progressive places to work with family-friendly policies for all employees. Its benefits packages are among the best anywhere. From what we know, the company goes out of its way to support all kinds of families. So what gives?

The Reed affiliation came out as Microsoft catches heat from its own employees and gay rights advocates for not taking a position on the proposed legislation. The gay rights bill failed by just one vote in the state's senate last week. Microsoft remained neutral on the legislation, raising the ire of many gay advocates. The company has come out in support of such legislation in the past.

Today, published reports indicate that because of mounting internal and public pressure, Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates says the company may rethink its decision to stay neutral on the issue. Microsoft needs to know that when it speaks, the world often listens. Perhaps it better put its money where its beliefs lie.

Topic of the Week - The Christian Right and our Judicial Branch of Government

2005-04-24T08:31:00.000-05:00

The past few weeks have resulted in some interesting quotes and actions from The Christian Right leaders regarding our Judicial Branch of Government....

* Tony Perkins, President of The Family Research Council issued the following statement -- "A day of decision is upon us...As the liberal, anti-Christian dogma of the left has been repudiated in almost every recent election, the courts have become the last great bastion for liberalism. For years activist courts, aided by liberal interest groups....have been quietly working under the veil of the judiciary, like thieves in the night, to rob us of our Christian heritage and our religious freedoms. "There’s more than one way to skin a cat, and there’s more than one way to take a black robe off the bench.”

* House Majority Leader Tom DeLay stated he would make sure that the GOP-controlled House "will look at an arrogant and out of control judiciary that thumbs its nose at Congress and the president. "We set up the courts. We can unset the courts. We have the power of the purse...”

* James Dobson, Founder of the Conservative Group Focus on the Family stated -- “Very few people know this, that the Congress can simply disenfranchise a court,” Dobson said. “They don’t have to fire anybody or impeach them or go through that battle. All they have to do is say the 9th Circuit doesn’t exist anymore, and it’s gone.”

* Vice-President Dick Cheney commented...in a speech to the Republican National Lawyers Association in Washington -- marked the first time the White House has explicitly outlined the role it is willing to play in ending the filibuster. "If the issue is presented to me in my elected office as president of the Senate and presiding officer, I will support bringing those nominations to the floor for an up-or-down vote," Cheney said, winning applause for explaining how the rule change could occur.

* Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is participating in The Family Research Council simulcast event this evening, Sunday, April 24th with a speech supporting the FRC event dubbed "Justice Sunday," will be an evening full of Religious Right activists screeching about our nation's federal judges and demanding that far-right fundamentalists stand up to take back their country. According to the FRC ad for the event, described in the Times piece and available on FRC's web site, the Senate filibuster rules are being used "against people of faith."

Hey Christian Right....what is going on here? Can you step back and look in the mirror for just a few seconds and realize that you and your people are trying to circumvent our system of checks and balances....all because you have a religious belief that you think should be indoctrinated into our public policies?

We have seen this religious "nationalism" throughout 20th century history....all founded upon people like yourselves who believe their belief system is "right" and everyone else's beliefs are "wrong." You have every right to your religious beliefs but do us all a favor and keep it to yourselves.

And, quit this victim stance....that "people of faith" are being downtrodden upon. Obviously your leaders like Perkins, Dobson, DeLay, etc. are manipulating you in stating that people of faith are "victims." It's like saying that the Nazi's were victims of Jewish persecution....seriously, that is how ridiculous your victim mentality and belief is.

I make no apology in attacking you on this issue....when you push for mixing your religious beliefs into our public policies and use rhetoric that is hateful in attacking people who support our system of checks and balances, I say "go home and say a few prayers and ask your Higher Power to help you see the Light, OK?"

Any comments? Click on 'Post a Comment' below.

Topic of the Week - 'Culture of Life' (Again)

2005-04-17T08:48:00.000-05:00

Once again, I am going to put the issue of the 'Culture of Life' on the table for discussion this week. After minimal 'comments' and postings on the blog in the last week on this topic, and with the 'Culture of Life' being one of two of the most heated and controversial issues in social politics in polarizing this country, this issue needs to be addressed and discussed in order to find some common ground.

So everyone, give us your view so others can get more insight and understanding on your stance on the "Culture of Life' issue. . Here are the five elements respective of the 'Culture of Life' ...and questions associated with each to stimulate discussion:

1. Abortion - Pro-Life or Pro-Choice, what is your view and why? How does this fit into your values & beliefs with respect to the 'Culture of Life?' What do you personally think we should do about this issue specific to public policy within our political structure and system?

2. The Death Penalty - same questions.

3. Euthanasia - same questions.

4. Justification (or not) of War - same questions.

5. Stem Cell Research - same questions.

Lets hear from all sides - Click below on 'Comments' and then click on 'Post a Comment' and write your comments in the window box and then publish.

Topic of the Week - 'Culture of Life'

2005-04-10T07:50:00.000-05:00

Below in italics is part of the verbiage posted on last week's Topic of the Week specific to the 'Culture of Life' agenda of Pope John Paul. Although we had the most activity this past week on the blog with 13 postings, not one posting addressed this 'Culture of Life' issue. Obviously, a very controversial issue, and one of two of the most controversial issue polarizing the populace in this country. The other controversial issue, homosexuality, had a lot of activity with the 13 postings this past week and thanks to those who posted their views.

So, why weren't there any postings on the 'Culture of Life' issue? Its understandable that when speaking to another regarding this issue, with the emotions behind it, why people avoid this issue rather than get into an inflamed argument. But the beauty of the blog universe is that this issue (or any issue) can be addressed between people with like or differing views and actually you can do it anonymously as well as with writing your opinions, rather than speaking directly with another, the blog minimizes an immediate reaction and causes one to pause and reflect before answering. It allows one to really think through their comments and frame their emotions and reasons behind their values and beliefs on this issue.

So here is a chance for the Republicans & Democrats, Conservatives & Liberals, The Christian Right & Other Christians/Other Beliefs to discuss this issue to see if there is any common ground. As stated below in italics on last week's posting, this is the one of two issues that polarizes this country and continues to slow progression in many areas on a whole.

So Conservatives & Christian Right people, give us your views so others can get more insight on your stance on the "Culture of Life' issue. Liberals and other Christians & other Beliefs, give us your views as well. Here are the five elements respective of the 'Culture of Life' and questions associated with each:

1. Abortion - what is your view and why? How does this fit into your values & beliefs with respect to the 'Culture of Life?' What do you personally think we should do about this issue specific to public policy within our political structure and system?

2. The Death Penalty - same questions.

3. Euthanasia - same questions.

4. Justification of War in Killing People Residing in Another Country & Culture - same questions.

5. Stem Cell Research - same questions.

Lets hear from both sides and see if there is any common ground. Click below on 'Comments' and then click on 'Post a Comment' and write your comments in the window box and then publish.

Its interesting to evaluate the commitment to the 'culture of life' that Pope John Paul had across the entire platform inclusive of abortion, the death penalty in all cases (overturning 1600 years of Catholic teachings on ' cases of extreme gravity'), calling for an end to war in absolute terms no matter the seemingly justification behind it, and an end to Euthanasia.

Pope John Paul's 'culture of life' realizes in contrasting values and beliefs here in the U.S. between Liberals (against death penalty, against war absolutely) and Conservatives (against abortion, against euthanasia) on this definition of the preservation of life. One wonders why there is such polarization within our country on this issue? Not really.

I personally believe there is some common ground on this issue between Liberals and Conservatives but only if one is truly open to understanding and accepting another person's values and beliefs on this issue without judgment...without proclaiming the other is wrong. Otherwise this country will continually be inflamed with hatred, dissention and attacks on the other's stance on this issue leading to further corruption, manipulation and increasingly unethical behavior by our government leaders in trying to win "votes" from the side that may have the most populace base in a given state...eventually resulting in stagnation on progress in all areas of our culture.

This one issue of the 'culture of life,' in my opinion, causes a majority of our population to base their vote without any or with very little consideration of the many other public policy issues. This has led and leads us continually to a state of paralysis in this country. It further lessens our standard of living in all areas; economically (macro and micro), spiritually (religious and secular people), financially (individually and state/federal government). This issue, 'culture of life,' is most important in finding common ground if we are to evolve in a positive direction in this country and is why I have mixed emotions on the Pope's stance specific to this issue - his was an absolute interpretation, regardless of circumstance.

Click below on 'Comments' and then click on 'Post a Comment' and write your comments in the window box and then publish.

Topic of the Week - The Passing of Pope John Paul II

2005-04-04T22:00:00.000-05:00

With Pope John Paul II passing this weekend, I have mixed emotions on his tenure and with a former Catholic identification as part of my past, my mixed emotions stem from his teachings on the 'culture of life.' In addition, the issue that upsets me most is the continual stance of the Catholic Church on their lack of acceptance of the Gay community - more on this later.

I do acknowledge he will be remembered as one of the most influential religious leaders in history. The world truly lost a person who had tremendous political and personal effect on the entire world and for that matter, much influence on our politics within the United States.

Pope John Paul's actions helped lead to the fall of communism within the Soviet bloc countries, the influence he had in attempting to bring the East and West Catholic Church together as one, his Evangelical mission in journeying to over 120 countries in meeting with heads of state as well as his outreach to world youths, his public demonstrations of unifying all faiths in some common bonds (apology to the Jewish faith on the Catholic Church's role in the holocaust is one example)...and many other remarkable acts of courage and benevolence.

Its interesting to evaluate the commitment to the 'culture of life' that Pope John Paul had across the entire platform inclusive of abortion, the death penalty in all cases (overturning 1600 years of Catholic teachings on ' cases of extreme gravity'), calling for an end to war in absolute terms no matter the seemingly justification behind it, and an end to Euthanasia.

Pope John Paul's 'culture of life' realizes in contrasting values and beliefs here in the U.S. between Liberals (against death penalty, against war absolutely) and Conservatives (against abortion, against euthanasia) on this definition of the preservation of life. One wonders why there is such polarization within our country on this issue? Not really.

I personally believe there is some common ground on this issue between Liberals and Conservatives but only if one is truly open to understanding and accepting another person's values and beliefs on this issue without judgment...without proclaiming the other is wrong. Otherwise this country will continually be inflamed with hatred, dissention and attacks on the other's stance on this issue leading to further corruption, manipulation and increasingly unethical behavior by our government leaders in trying to win "votes" from the side that may have the most populace base in a given state...eventually resulting in stagnation on progress in all areas of our culture.

This one issue of the 'culture of life,' in my opinion, causes a majority of our population to base their vote without any or with very little consideration of the many other public policy issues. This has led and leads us continually to a state of paralysis in this country. It further lessens our standard of living in all areas; economically (macro and micro), spiritually (religious and secular people), financially (individually and state/federal government). This issue, 'culture of life,' is most important in finding common ground if we are to evolve in a positive direction in this country and is why I have mixed emotions on the Pope's stance specific to this issue - his was an absolute interpretation, regardless of circumstance.

Another issue which is all important is civil rights and liberties, especially with the Gay community. Just as our country came together and took a governmental public policy stand against prejudice of all Americans (Blacks, Women, Hispanics, Jews, Muslims, etc.) with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, we must end the prejudice and persecution of the Gay community and publicly acknowledge and recognize their personal rights in all areas with passing legislation that reinforces the Civil Rights Act of 1964 legislation in terms of marriage, civil unions and family matters supporting equal benefits in standing with all Americans. This is all so important if we truly value what our country was founded upon..."We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"...no matter your sexual orientation, your religious or spiritual belief, your gender and your race & ethnic heritage.

This leads me back to my most conflicted emotion with the Pope as one of the most influential spiritual leaders of all time. When the leader of a religion that constitutes over a billion people (17 percent of the world's population) publicly proclaims and defines a platform stating that "homosexual marriage is part of a new ideology of evil," no matter his rationalization biblically, he is putting politics (church stance) above humanity and civil rights.

I won't even go into discourse on how poorly and slowly Pope John Paul reacted on the American Catholic Priest Phoebaphile and Pedophile issue as well as how hypocritical this stance is against the Gay community in general...especially when there is a spoken acknowledgement yet unspoken denial by the Vatican to the fact there are approximately 40 percent (most likely higher) of Priests that are gay.* How can the leader(s) of the Catholic Church denounce the Gay lifestyle when a significant percentage of his dominions are very much a part of this lifestyle...especially with the knowledge and acceptance of knowing this?

The Christian Right in this country follow the same path with their lack of humanity, lack of recognition and lack of acceptance in supporting the Gay community within their personal relationships.

That is why the successor to Pope John Paul will be all important and will most definitely affect the political environment in this country at a most delicate point in history. This then begs the following questions:

- How will the American Catholic Church leaders and Catholic population react to a successor that follows the same policy as Pope John Paul on the acceptance, rather lack of acceptance of the Gay community? On the same policy regarding Pope John Paul's definition of the culture of life?

- How will the American Catholic Church leaders and Catholic population react to a successor that is more moderate on the policy of not acknowledging civil rights for the Gay community? On a more moderate policy regarding Pope John Paul's definition of the culture of life?

- How will our President and conservative Republicans react to a more moderate Pope on these issues? To a more conservative Pope?

- How will The Christian Right react to another conservative Pope? Will they try to align more politically with the Catholic Church or follow their own agenda politically?

Your opinion to any of these questions or statements made in this Topic of the Week? Post your comments below.

* Fr. Donald Cozzens, who along with Thomas Doyle, Rev. Richard McBrien and John McCloskey and former Ambassador Ray Flynn discussed the future of the Catholic Church and the sex abuse scandal on Meet the Press on March 31, 2002, wrote a book entitled "The Changing Face of the Priesthood" -- in his book, Fr. Cozzens quoted a number of studies that placed the estimate between 30 percent and 50 percent of Priests who are gay.

Topic of the Week - Questions Raised in the Terri Schiavo Case

2005-03-27T09:34:00.000-06:00

As much as I personally resist in prolonging the story on the Terri Schiavo case based on the extensive media coverage, it is an issue that has certainly reinforced the polarization in this country between The Christian Right & Conservative Politicians vs. other Christians, other religious beliefs, Seculars and Liberals. The definition of life is one of the most heated issues of the value system differences amongst the right, middle and left. From a personal and political perspective, the Terri Schiavo case raises many interesting questions:

- How does one define life and living in the Terri Schiavo case? How does one define life and living within the thousands of other people in a current vegetative state in America?

- How does a society define life and living? Is this a personal decision, a family decision, a state decision or a federal decision?

- Who is the guardian of a person in a vegetative state? Husband? Parents? Siblings?

- When, or does a parents right ever expire when it comes to their children?

- Should federal jurisdiction prevail over state jurisdiction?

- Does Congress have a right to circumvent the Judicial process in extraordinary circumstances?

- Does the Executive branch of our government have the authority to circumvent our Legislative and Judicial branches of our government in extraordinary circumstances?

- Is there a limit to the appeal process?

- How does an individual and/or a society define protection of life or what is considered the right to life, with respect to a fetus, a vegetative state and an individual found guilty of first-degree murder? Is there an absolute line drawn between these three examples?

Your opinion? Post your comments below.

Topic of the Week - 2005 Review

2005-03-20T12:28:00.000-06:00

With Congress taking time off because of Easter week and reconvening the first week in April, so all of you get a perspective on some of the topics specific to policy issues that have transpired in the first Congressional Legislative Session of 2005 and other government areas, I have outlined issues that have become legislation and/or have been initiated and acted upon by our current regime and/or The Christian Right. This Blog's objective is to raise awareness and stimulate discussion of The Christian Right's value system's affect on public policy as aligned with the conservative movement and a majority wing of the Republican party.

Many Christians are put on defense immediately when entering the Blog based on the name "The Christian Wrong" - that is understandable. But do know the intent of this Blog name is to "stir the pot," if you will, in order to engage liberals & conservatives, moderate Christians & conservative Christians and Democrats, Republicans & Independents in discussion, debate and to hopefully come to an understanding of one position as well as another. It is not to attack Christians or Christianity, in general.

The term "values" has been overused to a degree when explaining the political polarization in the United States. However, this value system debate is the foundation of our differences when it comes to public policy issues. Thus, the list of issues below that have transpired in 2005 is intended to frame this discussion. I am going to comment and challenge specific issues in order to provoke reaction so it entices discussion. In no particular order...

1. Bush's Major Appointments in Second Term - Alberto Gonzalez as Attorney General, Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State, Michael Chertoff as Department of Homeland Security, Donald Rumsfeld to continue as Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfiwitz to head the World Bank, John R. Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations....stating he has a "mandate" the day after winning the Presidential election, it seems President Bush has structured a team that is seemingly more right-wing than his first term - agree/disagree? What signal is Bush sending to the European, Asian and Muslim countries? What signal is he sending to the American people?

2. Foreign Policy - The Bush regime's policy on the War on Terror with an objective of pre-emptive action, is this the right policy? The Iraq war - was it, is it worth it? The Mideast policy of aggression in instituting democracy - is this right? Multi-lateral talks with North Korea - the right strategy? Aligning with Europe on negotiations with Iran - make sense? The American policy on the conflicts in Africa (i.e. Darfur, Uganda)? The U.S. actions within the United Nations? Other Foreign Policy Initiatives?

3. The Budget Proposal & Budget Deficit - 150 programs are targeted for cuts or elimination as well as making the tax cuts in Bush's first term permanent. In addition, why were social security "reform" and the escalating cost of the Iraq War not included in Bush's budget proposal? One must identify the overarching objective by this regime that started four years ago with an actual intention of increasingly building the deficit. Yes, an intention of increasing the deficit. This underlying conservative objective is not new (remember the Reagan deficits) and one of its primary missions is to eliminate many social programs in order to concentrate more dollars within the conservative preferred programs; defense spending, tax incentives, faith-based programs, etc. and cut or eliminate many of the socially funded programs. Is this ethical?

4. The Christian Right, George Bush and The Anti-Gay Movement - James Dobson, former Director of Focus on the Family, publicly proclaimed that SpongeBob SquarePants is being used to promote a homosexual agenda and initiated a massive campaign to boycott the show. The nation's new education secretary, Margaret Spellings, denounced PBS in late January for spending public money on a cartoon with lesbian characters, saying many parents would not want children exposed to such lifestyles. In his State of the Union speech, George Bush stated "Because marriage is a sacred institution and the foundation of society, it should not be re-defined by activist judges. For the good of families, children, and society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage." Many other media and non-media initiatives by the conservative wing , The Christian Right and our President are taking place against the gay community. Is this agenda against the gay community in contrast to the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Is our President and The Christian Right practicing prejudice?
Webster's dictionary defines prejudice as "an irrational attitude of hostility directed against an individual, a group, a race, or their supposed characteristics" - it sounds like our President and The Christian Right is not only practicing prejudice but inflaming it. Your opinion?

5. The Environment - The Senate passed 51-49 to allow the ecologically rich Alaska wildlife refuge to oil drilling. Amid soaring oil and gas prices, a contested debate allowed this drilling to take place later in the year. Also, The Christian Right has a majority percentage that believe in "Dominion Theology" defined as God gave dominion over the earth to Adam & Eve (dominion meaning supreme authority). With the belief in the second coming of Jesus Christ and Judgment Day, The Christian Right believes in a finite life to our planet realizing in a partial disregard for the environment. The Bush Administration has catered to this belief system...to a degree. That being said, it was encouraging to see some Evangelical leaders speak out in the last 10 days in support of an agenda that protects the environment against global warming. Thoughts, opinions on the drilling of oil in the Alaska wildlife refuge? On the environmental record of George Bush? On Dominion Theology?

6. Social Security Issue - Seemingly the top priority of Bush's second term agenda is Social Security reform, and he has put on the table a major restructuring of Social Security with private accounts as the key piece of his Social Security proposal. If one studies the conservative agenda, one would discover that conservatives have an overarching agenda to cut benefits and potentially eliminate Social Security altogether in the future. Is Bush initiating reform to reach this objective in the future or is he truly interested in protecting Social Security? Does his emphasis on private accounts have anything to do with saving Social Security or is his private account initiative designed to cater to Wall Street? Is this "crisis" truly a crisis?

7. The Bush Regime and the News Media - when the government has to phony up coverage to make itself look good, what are we to make of the Bush administration's quarter-billion-dollar PR campaign (with our tax dollars) in which at least 20 federal agencies have sent out hundreds of self-promoting TV reports to networks and local stations disguised as news reports? Or of broadcasters' willingness, on a far wider scale than has been reported, to air these bogus stories as ordinary journalism? Or, to deny and/or grant access to the White House Press corps who do or do not challenge the Bush regime's agenda or who are planted (i.e. Jeff Gannon) in the White House to ask questions to compliment the objective of a particular issue? Or, Bush's stump tour on Social Security where the audience is hand-picked of those that only support his Social Security reform? Is this Government control and manipulation of the media? Is this Propaganda?

8. Bankruptcy Legislation - Within the last 10 days, Congress passed legislation to make it more difficult to file for personal bankruptcy. Although there are those who have abused prior bankruptcy legislation in filing to protect credit card debt (reports state less than five percent), a Harvard study stated that the "big three" incidents; lack of ability to pay health care costs, divorce/separation or loss of job account for 87 percent of personal bankruptcies. In that the conservative agenda is to protect "big business" interests, is this legislation just for the average consumer?

9. Class Action Lawsuits (Tort Reform) - specific to moving large-scale, consumer class action lawsuits to the Federal Courts to prevent lawyers to seek venues and locations that are sympathetic to consumers, is restructuring class action lawsuits a good thing for consumers? One can argue it is not in that it allows "big business" to eventually budget in the cost of class action lawsuits in their annual budgets regardless of the affects on consumers rights, personal health and our environment. Your opinion?

10. Christianity and Public Education - The Christian Right is attempting to incorporate Christianity as part of public education's curriculum. The leaders of The Christian Right have devised a strategy to incorporate religion, specifically Christianity, into our public educational system into the subject of American History by educating children and adolescents on Creationism as a theory in contrast to the theory of evolution. Is utilizing our tax dollars to educate students on religion, specifically Christianity, right?

In addition, a just released study on March 18th conducted by Yale & Columbia Universities over a period of eight years, found the teen "Virginity" pledges are just as likely to contract STD's despite a commitment to delay sexual relations until marriage, and most pledges (61-79 percent dependent upon "consistent" and "inconsistent" pledgers) engaged in premarital sex and the pledges used condoms less than those that did not pledge. And guess what? President Bush has requested $206 million in federal funding for abstinence-only programs this year. Is it right to allocate tax dollars to promote a program that increases health risks among teens? Your opinion?

11. Pro-Choice/Pro-Life Legislation - Tucked into the $388 billion budget measure approved by the House and Senate back in November of 2004 is a sweeping provision specific to curtailing personal choice. In essence, it tells health care companies, hospitals and insurance companies they are free to ignore Roe v. Wade, and ignore state/local laws and regulations currently on the books, to make certain that women's access to reproductive health services includes access to abortion. Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, won a promise from the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist, to permit a direct vote on a bill repealing this measure not long into the Congressional session of 2005. Has this issue resurfaced in the current session? Your opinion on this practice of burying issues within spending bills? Your opinion on restricting abortion as an option to those medical institutions partially funded with tax dollars?

12. Faith-Based Initiatives - within the budget proposal is over a quarter of a billion dollars allocated to Faith-Based Initiatives which is another way of stating that tax dollars are being allocated to religious organizations. And with the alignment of the conservative wing of the Republican Party with The Christian Right, there is concern that tax dollars will go to support religious organizations that directly or indirectly fund the right-wing politicians and only support the religion of Christianity. Is this separation of Church and State as our Forefathers intended?

13. Christianity and Public Forum - . Whether the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional based on the reference to "under God" which calls into question the separation of Church & State, whether the Ten Commandments should be displayed in court houses and other public places funded primarily by tax dollars, whether references to the Christian God is appropriate by our Political leaders in public speeches specific to policy issues, and many, many more contested issues between the separation of church & state in public forum...your opinion?

14. Euthanasia - The Terry Schiavo case, the movie "Million Dollar Baby," and numerous other cases framing the debate between the right to life and right to personal choice of death factions. Congress actually has interfered with the Judicial branch of our government in the Terry Schiavo case...is this Democracy when one of our branches of government interferes with the jurisdiction of another branch? Is the right to life or right to personal choice of death a Legislative, Judicial and/or Executive jurisdiction?

Of course, there are many, many other issues that have come to surface in 2005 specific to public policy and the conservative agenda. I hand-picked those issues that seemingly are the most controversial thus far. If you care to comment, click on 'Comment' below and post accordingly.

Topic of the Week - Faith-Based Initiative, Tort Reform & Bankruptcy Legislation

2005-03-12T05:06:00.000-06:00

What has happened in Congress over the last 10 days? Unfortunately...

The House approved legislation permitting religious groups participating in job training programs to hire individuals based on their beliefs, a big step in adopting Bush's faith-based initiative. Another bill, legislation requiring large-scale, consumer class action suits to be filed in federal court, an important cog in Bush's tort reform agenda passed through the House and Senate and Bush already signed this bill into law. And finally, one other bill, Bankruptcy Reform, passed through the Senate and is now being voted on in the House...this bankruptcy reform legislation will make it more difficult for thousands of filers to protect their assets. The legislation likely will breeze through the House and land on Bush's desk within the next few weeks.

All bills have an underlying connection to the overall Bush agenda in transforming public policy in this country to a more conservative value system. Once again, these are slippery slope initiatives - let me explain further.

1. Faith-Based Initiative and the Hiring Process - President Bush believes, and now apparently the House of Representatives does as well, that regardless of whether government funds are involved that faith-based groups should retain legal rights to take their faith into account when making employment hiring or firing decisions. Again, this includes programs and organizations that are funded, or partially funded, by federal tax dollars. So basically this is taking our principle of separation of church and state and disregarding it...to a degree. While Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 exempts religious organizations from adhering to the hiring practices of corporations based on race, sex, religion, etc., the exemption is intended for religious organizations that are privately funded, not publicly (government) funded. Question - does this legislation not open the door to potentially concentrate federally funded dollars to faith-based organizations hiring only "belief-minded" individuals (i.e. The Christian Right) who support the political agenda of the regime in power? One could argue this opens the door and could tear the door off its hinges in the future. Can you imagine a flow of money (or exchange of) where our government in power leverages its majority to fund selective faith-based organizations and where the faith-based organizations then fund those politicians who support their beliefs in kind? Sounds like religious organizations are overtly moving into the Lobbyist arena, we already know the influence and money The Christian Right spends in covertly in funding their politicians - not good. I am most interested in getting a counter argument, or an extended argument of my position on this issue from any of you - click on the link below if interested.

2. Class Action Lawsuits (tort reform) - specific to moving large-scale, consumer class action lawsuits to the Federal Courts to prevent lawyers to seek venues and locations that are sympathetic to consumers...while on the surface it seems to make sense, right? Why not limit class action law suits because there are too many lawyers meaning too many people are filing "bogus" lawsuits, right? Wrong - to both and here is why. This is indeed a slippery slope initiative - in fact, in Memphis on Friday our President stated in respect to tort reform, "There's more work to do." He's pushing for additional tort reform, looking to lawmakers to institute curbs on lawsuits filed against asbestos companies and limit pain-and-suffering awards in medical malpractice cases. Bush and the conservative politicians do not necessarily care about the lawsuits themselves, they are focused on getting rid of environmental, consumer and worker protections in general - this supports big business and big business tends to support/fund the Republican party. Question(s) - how do you feel about enacting limits on lawsuits to allow big business to actually budget annually for class action lawsuits? Leading to...how do you feel as a consumer to know that Ford Motor can now build a new Pinto Wagon (as in 1973) and cut costs once again on gas tank placement so when rear-ended, passengers in the car can be victims of an explosive vehicle realizing most likely in severe injury or death from this collision? Seriously, have you thought of this - how Big Business can calculate in advance the cost of paying victims and build into their budgets the cost of doing business? And how the Bush/Conservative agenda of tort reform can and possibly will affect your lives in multiple ways? I won't even get into examples all of the major corporations who will budget in lawsuits to aid them now in increasing their chemical burning, coal burning, nuclear power plant burning means - how do you think this is going to affect the air we breathe? Comments, Opinions? Click on the link below.

3. Personal Bankruptcy Reform - did you know that only five percent of all personal bankruptcies are not legitimate? And that approximately 50 percent of all personal bankruptcies are related to people who cannot pay their health care costs? Basically they have run out of money. Now, with the bankruptcy reform legislation, thousands of people will not be able to protect any of their assets and many will eventually move to poverty or even become homeless. Why do the conservatives want this? Basically, the conservative agenda includes supporting those with means more so than those without. Truly, this is the bottom line when it comes to conservatives. They believe social programs are immoral and remove the incentive to be disciplined. Thus, reforming bankruptcy removes the undisciplined people from receiving protection. Are there financially undisciplined people who abuse the system? Of course. But again, this is approximated at only five percent of all illegitimate bankruptcy claims. I guess its easy to support bankruptcy reform when you have the means to support yourself. I just wonder how many people who were once conservative and in support of bankruptcy reform, and then lost their job and were out of work for over a year (or longer) and realized what it feels like to lose almost everything you have worked for? Are these people now a bit more compassionate in their thinking and values? I would bet they are.

To comment, discuss, debate and offer your opinion on all three issues, click on 'Comment' below.

Topic of the Week - The Christian Right and Public Education

2005-02-27T09:45:00.000-06:00

Appropriately, in today's New York Times on the front page of the "Week in Review" section, there is an editorial by David Kirkpatrick on the debate between The Christian Right and almost all others on whether God and Christianity should be required in public education in the course of American History. The article compliments this week's topic of the week very well - The Christian Right and their attempt to incorporate Christianity as part of public education's curriculum.

One has to be careful here and pay close attention - this is a slippery slope initiative. The leaders of The Christian Right have devised a rather brilliant strategy to incorporate religion, specifically Christianity, into our public educational system. Their argument and stance entails:

"Christianity was prevalent throughout American History, especially with our Founding Fathers and it was incorporated throughout the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. In addition, our first President, third President and 16th President all incorporated Christianity into their policies. Benjamin Rush, one of our founding fathers, argued vehemently that public education must rest on vigorous instruction in the Christian religion. The Christian Right states all references to Christianity by our Founding Fathers, Lincoln and other references should all be incorporated, AND defined as historical specific to America's Christian value system ...then and now."

By focusing on the historical aspects of Christian doctrine pervasive among our Founding Fathers and political leaders, The Christian Right wants all public education to incorporate this "history" in defining the values AND belief system of our political system into public education. The slippery slope here is if Christianity becomes part of our American History classes as part of the defined curriculum, this will open the doors to incorporate Christianity into other courses ... and eventually as part of a stand-alone curriculum. You must know, this is the overarching objective of The Christian Right. And more importantly, you should know that the pressure The Christian Right is putting on elected officials at the grass roots level is very, very intense and organized.

And remember, separation of Church and State includes our public educational system in that our schools are funded by our government tax dollars ...which is absolutely against the foundation of this country. Funding of and support of one religion over other religions by our government is simply unconstitutional.

If you have a reaction or comment on this Topic of the Week, post your comment by clicking on the 'Comments' below.

Teens & Twenties Reaction to "Fascism Tendencies"

2005-02-26T10:46:00.000-06:00

Hi All,

I thought you may be interested in dialogue back and forth on an online discussion forum that my little brother, from the Big Brother/Big Sister program, when he posted the Topic of the Week from this week's The Christian Wrong Blog. The online discussion forum - http://www.blogger.com/www.offtopic.com is a rant and rave among the teens and twenties age group. Within 24 hours, there were 61 comments back and forth - read below. It is most interesting and you get a glimpse of how and what the younger mindset thinks and believes.

p.s. Unfortunately, I did not have dinner with the Dayton family (that would have been fun) although the fundraiser he is talking about was for Kerry and Al Franken was the speaker, and it was a fun time nonetheless.

PWB

If the mods here don't mind, I have a friend who has created a political blog since Election 2004, and I'd like to post some his writings once a week. Would that be okay without considering it spam?

A little background into PWB: I've know him since I was 8 years old and I can tell you that he isn't some armchair liberal or know-it-all college kid. He is 42, is happily married, is well-versed and owns his own advertising business. Last year, he had dinner with the Dayton family (our slightly-looney governor) and 50 of their friends for a Democratic fundraiser. Again, he knows his politics and isn't some blogger who likes to ramble.

The Christian Right and The Bushies - Fascism Tendencies?

Oh boy first post. This space for rent... I'll give tek a discount when he comes back.
Scrumtralecent's Avatar

I agree with all of that.

yeah man, because bush is such a dictator what with the congress and all
by sans_pants

Did you even read it?

nah not yet, i just read the definitions of facism and thats all i really need, i suppose i can go back and read it though if that will make everyone happy.
ok now i read it. its still stupid. a few things off the top of my head are that gay people arent a race and that the patriot act was passed by a majority of congress both dem and republican

whats this guys age and level of education, ill assume he goes to college currently

next i could try to explain why bush isnt actually tied to the christian right and how most far right wingers dont like bush due to some of his policies and then i could explain how lobbyists are important, but im sure we have no room for facts or anything in here

Quote:
Originally Posted by Automaton
1. . . . In an interview with the Washington Post on January 20, 2005, our Vice-President stated that the Executive branch of our government should have more concentration of power and implied our Constitution should be amended as so.

Got an actual quote to go with the unsupported claim?

Quote:
"Cheney was especially critical of anything that would undermine the president's powers as commander in chief. He said he agrees with many who believe the War Powers Act, which was passed in 1973 and attempts to restrict the president's use of military force, is "unconstitutional," though that has not been fully tested in the courts."

He should be critical of anything that undermines the President's authority as Commander-in-chief. The Constitution grants the president those powers, which means they cannot be taken away. But of course liberals can't stand to see power in anyone's hands other than their own, so I'm not surprised that they're worried that the President might retain all the powers granted to him by the Constitution.

Quote:
Our President proclaimed after winning 51 percent of the popular vote that the people have given him a mandate.

Clinton and his people always claimed a mandate, as did all you liberals and democrats. The funny thing is that Clinton never won more than (I believe) 48% of the popular vote (not that the popular vote means anything at all anyway).

So Bush's claim of a mandate - as the first president in 16 years to gain more than 50% of votes cast - is pretty solid.

Quote:
The Executive branch, Legislative branch and Judicial branch now have a conservative majority in this country - at risk is our system of checks and balances.

How exactly is it that seeing the preference of the people reflected in the makeup of the government (which is supposedly "by the people, of the people, and for the people") a threat to the system of checks and balances? Congress still has power over the President. The Courts still have power over the Congress. And the President and the Congress still have power over the courts. Seems to me the system is working as designed.

Your friend is full of shit. If this first point is any indication, he doesn't have anything to say other than foaming-at-the-mouth liberal propaganda. He sure as hell doesn't seem to be on speaking terms with any actual facts or reasoning to back up his ridiculous claims, and is engaged in nothing more than whining, thinly disguised as political analysis.

Originally Posted by sans_pants
nah not yet, i just read the definitions of facism and thats all i really need, i suppose i can go back and read it though if that will make everyone happy.

F911 was all lies? Did you see it? No.
The Simpsons gay episode is an outrage! Did you watch it? No.
________________________________

Bush = Hitler

Bush = Hitler

Bush = Hitler

Bush = Hitler

Location: Louisville, KY

As you can clearly see, pissing of the Christians is a great idea. You piss us off, our guy gets in office by the most popular votes in history.
Arcenius's Avatar

Location: While Socialists learn to eliminate certain societies, Capitalists learn to legislate certain societies
Originally Posted by Carnifex

Agreed, partially!

Quote:

1.. Mr. Bush consistently sends signals to his right wing religious base. In last year's State of the Union he exhorted: "there's power, wonder working power, in the goodness and idealism and faith of the American people". It's a phrase from a well known Communion hymn "there's power, wonder working power in the blood of the lamb". Bush brings together the holiness zeal of Christian evangelicalism with patriotic fundamentalism. The core belief system of this 'civic gospel' goes something like this: The United States was founded as a Christian nation with free enterprise as the only economic system truly compatible with Christian beliefs.

Why a conservative would advocate religion on such an extreme level and use terminology that a moderate conservative would never use, is a mystery to me.

Of course, why 60 million voted for such an individual will be the world's majestic anonymity of all.

I always thought that a conservative, at least one with traditional American conservative views, would favor smaller government, not bigger.

Originally Posted by rzklkng
F911 was all lies? Did you see it? No.

Yes I did. And it was all lies, half-truths, and misdirections.
Joe_Cool

You believe a movie that was editted like it was a freaking 3rd grade collage?
Madwolf

Did anyone actually read the webster definition in the article? Most of it can be applied to many Socialist Dictatorships around the globe.

I might add that every government must ballance law enforcement and national security with civil liberties. These are important issues of which this author seems to be short on details and long on name calling and finger pointing.

It's all proper FBI law enforcement under Reno Justice, but now Fascism under Bush?
RMNIXON

Location: While Socialists learn to eliminate certain societies, Capitalists learn to legislate certain societies
RMNIXON

Whether it be a Socialist Dictatorship(which is what I prefer anyday over a Fascist Dictatorship) or Fascist rule, they are essentially the same. They involve big government which controls its people and makes decisions for them. Extreme left and right have more in common than people would like to believe.

The only difference I can think of is that Fascists incorporate religion into their state, while Socialists keep religion out.
Wolvrin704's

Arcenius writes:

Are you sure about Fascists incorporating religion? The Fascist gov'ts that I can think of; Nazi Germany, Italy(under Mussolini) and Franco-led Spain did not advocate religion. Unless you make the claim that the gov't was the religion and the dictator was their god.

I chuckle when people claim Bush, the far right and the Christian Right are Fascists or want to take over gov't. You guys fail to see this for what it is. Most Christians don't really see this as a political fight of right vs left. They see politics as just another arena in the fight over moral corruption and the spiritual direction of our country. That is what it really is about. They are sickened by the moral decadence of our country which is quite evident by watching the nightly news, entertainment news and all the "reality" shows featuring rich and or famous people. No longer do Christians wish to roll over and give up their political rights as they did for so long.

WickedLou9's Avatar

Dude. WTF are you talking about? What rights have we Christians given up over the past 100 years?

I'm not talking about rights. I'm talking about the moral decadence of scoiety and its creeping into law and gov't. I'm not going to mention any specifics as it would just lead to a thread hijack.
Nevertheless while I do not have a problem with "let people do what they want because its a free country". But, I do have a problem when those values are taught to my children.
Wolvrin704

Originally Posted by Seawolf
Every administration since the WPA was passed thinks it's a bunch of crap.... it's called "legislative branch vs. the executive branch." >

Presidents that have the power to take the country to war on thier own whims instantly turn into dictators. Like Bush, only he lied and tricked everyone.
TheRemains

Robert Kennedy Jr. has been quoted within the last year stating our current regime's policies are starting to look familiar to Fascism.

I wanted to stop reading this bullshit right here because I basically tune out anyone who calls a president elected by a democratic process a "regime". That just makes you biased. A few years back, while I may have not liked Clinton at all, I never slapped him with a wacko label like that. Also, I like how its all the sudden its a problem when Republicans/Conservatives control all three branches of government, but I'm sure he didn't care at all when Liberal had the Presidency, both houses and a court that ended up legalizing abortion
UMiami3

Presidents that have the power to take the country to war on thier own whims instantly turn into dictators. Like Bush, only he lied and tricked everyone.

I am sick of this "He tricked everybody". Do people really think he is the only person who gets to look at intelligence? Then wtf does the "Senate Intelligence Commitee do?

1. A form of government: a fascist regime.
2. A government in power; administration: suffered under the new regime.

1. A prevailing social system or pattern.
2. The period during which a particular administration or system prevails.
3. A regulated system, as of diet and exercise; a regimen.

Regime doesn't always have a negative meaning.
UMiami3

I am sick of this "He tricked everybody". Do people really think he is the only person who gets to look at intelligence? Then wtf does the "Senate Intelligence Commitee do?

HE might not have been the only one that looked at it but HE is the commander in chief and the buck stops at his desk. He is ultimately responsible for the decisions made by himself and his staff.

If i fuck up at work, my boss gets heat for it. Same situation.
Dos Equis4

Regime doesn't always have a negative meaning.

Not technically, no. But you're either dishonest, ignorant, or hopelessly naïve if you say that it doesn't always carry a negative implication.

Ah, I see. You're not aware that there's a difference between common usage and dictionary definition. Joe_Cool
shermttam's Avatar

Where do I start with this post? It's so flawed I'm tempted just to say BS to all of it and move on...

Screw it, you know what...That's what I'm going to do. This post is BS, forget about taking it line by line and pointing out the dozen or so flaws. If you want to be so warped and intellectually bankrupt as to say that the Bush administration is verging on fascism and believe you're being insightful and original I think you need to begin an anti-psychotic drug regimen.

How in the hell can you read one of those definitions for fascism, not to mention look at the history of facist governments, and believe it applies to the Bush administration? In case you don't understand how American politics works Bush has at most 8 years to be in office. He, as is the congress, is voted into office by the American people.

Bush is a dictator, Bush is Hitler, Bush hates gays, minorities, and non-republicans...Grow up and use your brain instead of regurgitating liberal, talking-head, absurdities.

When Bush sends the military to wipe out the congress and judiciary, revokes private property rights, murders or imprisons any of the dissenting population I'll agree with the whole Bush is a fascist idea. Until I believe that any of that scenario is likely though, I'll just smile and laugh at you.
Wolvrin704

Are you sure about Fascists incorporating religion? The Fascist gov'ts that I can think of; Nazi Germany, Italy(under Mussolini) and Franco-led Spain did not advocate religion. Unless you make the claim that the gov't was the religion and the dictator was their god.

Of course they incorporate religion. Let me ask you something, have you ever really looked closely at a swastika before?

Hint: (It's a twisted cross)

You should read "Mein Kampf" and the terminology Hitler used to describe himself. The amount of words you will find connected with spirituality and religion is fascinating.

Quote:
Who says I am not under the special protection of God?

This is one of the several quotes Hitler uses in his book to hint us that he indeed believed in GOD and that he was sent by god to be "THE ONE WHO LEADS." In short, DER FUHRER. Isn't Bush today the one who leads the great empire called the United States?

Quote:
I chuckle when people claim Bush, the far right and the Christian Right are Fascists or want to take over gov't. You guys fail to see this for what it is. Most Christians don't really see this as a political fight of right vs left. They see politics as just another arena in the fight over moral corruption and the spiritual direction of our country. That is what it really is about. They are sickened by the moral decadence of our country which is quite evident by watching the nightly news, entertainment news and all the "reality" shows featuring rich and or famous people. No longer do Christians wish to roll over and give up their political rights as they did for so long.

Well let me tell you, religion is the only aspect of life which essentially never changes. It is always the same. It never improves, it never adapts and it always discriminates. I think people are fed up with living in the 21st century while their religious counterparts or friends want to steer the nation into a thinking process worse than the Middle Ages.

Originally Posted by Arcenius
You should read "Mein Kampf" and the terminology Hitler used to describe himself. The amount of words you will find connected with spirituality and religion is fascinating.

Maybe you don't know that along with the Jews, outspoken Christians who were against Hitler were some of the first people to be herded off to the concentration camps. What god was Hitler serving?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcenius
Isn't Bush today the one who leads the great empire called the United States?

So what's your point?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcenius
Well let me tell you, religion is the only aspect of life which essentially never changes. It is always the same. It never improves, it never adapts and it always discriminates. I think people are fed up with living in the 21st century while their religious counterparts or friends want to steer the nation into a thinking process worse than the Middle Ages.

What religion are you talking about?
shermttam , Location: DFW, Texas

You're both wrong. It is a religious symbol, yes, but the swastika predates the Christian cross by several centuries. Swastikas were present in Mesopotamian art and the ruins of the Indus River Valley civilization. It is actually a rather widespread ancient religious symbol, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the cross.

I agree with you. My point was basically the same, only in fewer words. He placed emphasis on cross (I believe implying a connection with Christianity). I placed the emphasis on twisted, denying what I perceived his belief to be.

Ah, I misunderstood what you were saying then. Carry on.

Originally Posted by shermttam
It's a twisted cross.

Twisted does not mean insane, in this case. Don't even try that tactic. Twisted or not, IT IS RELIGIOUS and it is a cross nonetheless.

That Bush indeed does lead the US in a Fascist like tendency.

Quote:
What religion are you talking about?

Mainly Christianity and Islam.

Arcenius
Originally Posted by Arcenius
Twisted does not mean insane, in this case. Don't even try that tactic. Twisted or not, IT IS RELIGIOUS and it is a cross nonetheless.

As quoted at the end of this post you state you have a problem with Christianity and Islam. So, was I wrong in my understanding that your emphasis on the word "cross" was a slap at Christianity? I was merely pointing out that a "twisted" cross is not a Christian cross.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcenius
This is one of the several quotes Hitler uses in his book to hint us that he indeed believed in GOD and that he was sent by god to be "THE ONE WHO LEADS." In short, DER FUHRER. Isn't Bush today the one who leads the great empire called the United States?

That Bush indeed does lead the US in a Fascist like tendency.

So let me see if I understand what you are saying then...Hitler believed he was appointed, or "protected" in the quote you posted earlier, by God (or at least a god) and Bush believes he was appointed by God, so your logical conclusion is that they both must be fascists? Belief in a god = Fascism?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcenius
Mainly Christianity and Islam.

So you're arguing that religion has offered in the past and is currently offering absolutely nothing to the world?
Arcenius's Avatar

Location: While Socialists learn to eliminate certain societies, Capitalists learn to legislate certain societies

Fascism=belief in god
Communism= belief in materialism (Diabolical Materialism)

What is there not to understand?

I'm not sure what Bush feels like since he's too stupid to come up with quotes himself, but his previous state of the Union Speech, not the in 2005, contains religious rhetoric and propaganda. See my first post.

Quote:
So you're arguing that religion has offered in the past and is currently offering absolutely nothing to the world? >

Since when did I say that religion has offered nothing? Where in the fucking world did you get that from, seriously?

In fact, my posts support the opposite. Religion has offered many great things...sadly, they can be summed up into HATE and DISCIMINATION.
Dos Equis4's Avatar

Arc, you might as well be talking to a bundle of sticks.

They can't grasp fascist tendancies is not equal to hitler. Hilter was the most extreme fascist. They think that by saying bush has fascist tendancies, means that you are implying bush = hitler. Bush has fascist tendancies, we all know bush is not equal to hitler.

Its like saying "Bob has quarterback qualities. Bob must be Peyton Manning."
Location: Houston, TX

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool
Not technically, no. But you're either dishonest, ignorant, or hopelessly naïve if you say that it doesn't always carry a negative implication.

Incorrect, at least in the realm of political science.

Quote:
What is a political regime? A regime is a political order in which one party essentially controls national politics, usually for several generations. The New Deal Coalition can be thought of as a regime, reigning from 1933 until roughly 1980. According to Skowronek, a new regime is usually resilient, while it may grow vulnerable over time. Presidents may either be affiliated with the current regime or opposed to it. Right now, according to Skowronek’s theory, we are still in the Reagan regime. George W. Bush is affiliated (not opposed) to this regime. Circumstances of Leadership: When he comes to power, every president is either affiliated with the current regime or opposed to the current regime. For example, Lyndon Johnson was affiliated with the New Deal regime of Franklin Roosevelt. Theodore Roosevelt was affiliated with Lincoln’s regime. On the other hand, Andrew Jackson came into office opposed to the fractured Jefferson regime, and Ronald Reagan was elected in opposition to FDR’s New Deal regime. George W. Bush, our current president, has been elected as an affiliated president. He is affiliated with the Reagan regime.

There is a status of the regime when a president comes into office. The regime is either vulnerable or resilient. If a regime is vulnerable, it means its basic ideologies are susceptible to direct repudiation. If a regime is resilient, then the basic ideologies are still strong.

The link isn't from my school, but I've used the quoted book in my Presidency classes.
surrender

Originally Posted by Arcenius
In fact, my posts support the opposite. Religion has offered many great things...sadly, they can be summed up into HATE and DISCIMINATION.

hate, discrimination AND the leading causes of war.
Dos Equis4

They can't grasp fascist tendancies is not equal to hitler. Hilter was the most extreme fascist. They think that by saying bush has fascist tendancies, means that you are implying bush = hitler. Bush has fascist tendancies, we all know bush is not equal to hitler.

Its like saying "Bob has quarterback qualities. Bob must be Peyton Manning."

Which is why, in one of my first posts in this thread, I said the following....

Agreed, partially!

It was a reply to Carnifex basically stating this: Bush=Hitler

I've even mentioned the word tendencies quite a few times myself, but no one seems to get it except you.

There has been one person who has said "Bush = Hitler." In my first post in this thread I referred to it sarcastically. I've not been having a Bush = Hitler discussion. The line of discussion I've had with Arc is the idea that Hitler believed in God, Hitler was a fascist, Bush believes in God, so Bush must be a fascist. In his last post to me he said, "fascism = belief in god." I don't follow this logic. I'm not having some Bush = Hitler discussion, Hitler only came into the discussion seriously after Arc brought in both the Nazi's and Hitler. Up to that point I was only arguing the tendencies, ideas, and actualities of a fascist government and trying to see how it could be possible to see Bush in this light.
Shermttam

Originally Posted by littlebill

To me, the original poster has chosen the correct username of Automaton. That's how he thinks--like a motherfucking robot. Boy, how you lefties like to bash anyone who believes in a higher power. For shame, you blue state larvae.

BTW, when I call you larvae, I mean that affectionately. Really. I do.
Dos Equis4

Yeah, but I wrote my own fucking articles. See the difference, you bastard? I'm not a plagarist. If I wrote the fucking things, then why do I have to agree to give commentary on them? In other words, I agree with all of it. Understand? Or am I talking above your head?
Littlebill

Dos Equis4's Avatar

I dont bash those who believe in a higher being. I bash those who believe in a higher being and try to incorporate those religious beliefs into legislation for our country, thus imposing their beliefs on to me and others. I realize there are a lot of people who share a common belief, but it does not belong in government. Save it for the church and your private lives.

I can handle "god bless america" in speeches, but when people use that shit for justification for certain laws, i think that is wrong.

Automaton's Avatar
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Originally Posted by thomez
You can post articles if and only if you reply to those who participate in the threads and if you give personal comments about the article, like you would an editorial piece from a newspaper. Say what you agree with, disagree with, whatever, but participate in the discussions. This is what littlebill has not done, so he is deemed a spammer IMO.

Okay, I'll try my best next time. He just basically a very close friend of mine who wants to be heard. He's too busy with his own business to come in here on a daily basis to respond, that's why he writes these once a week. I'll see what I can do to add comments from myself or get him in here. Thanks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcenius
I have a problem not just with Islam or Christianity, but with every religious view or institution. Well, a twisted cross sure as hell doesn't look like the star and the cresent of Islam. The closest symbol to a twisted cross is the cross of Christians. Why you are trying to deny this is beyond me.

You do realize that the Swastika originally was a Hindu symbol, right?
Wolvrin704

Wolvrin apparently knows nothing about the swastika
sans_pants

Yes, except the Hindu symbol is backwards than the swastika.

What's your point?
Arcenius

While Socialists learn to eliminate certain societies, Capitalists learn to legislate certain societies
sans_pants

Obviously, I am the only one(with a couple of other members) who know anything about religion and swastikas.

Try again sans pants!

Weekly Update - The Christian Right's Attempt to Transform Public Policy

2005-02-24T07:54:00.000-06:00

Here are a few links regarding attempts by The Christian Right to Transform Public Policy:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/24/opinion/24dowd.html?th

http://www.theocracywatch.org/index.html

http://www.avrev.com/news/0105/6.indecency.html

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5648.htm

Topic of the Week: The Christian Right and The Bush Regime - Fascist Tendencies?

2005-02-20T10:01:00.000-06:00

Robert Kennedy Jr. has been quoted within the last year stating our current regime's policies are starting to look familiar to Fascism.

According to the American Heritage dictionary, the definition of Fascism is "a system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism."

Merriam Webster's dictionary defines Fascism as "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascists) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial type leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition."

Lets decipher these definitions in relation to our current regime and The Christian Right.

1. Centralization of Authority and Dictorial Type Leader
- In an interview with the Washington Post on January 20, 2005, our Vice-President stated that the Executive branch of our government should have more concentration of power and implied our Constitution should be amended as so. "Cheney was especially critical of anything that would undermine the president's powers as commander in chief. He said he agrees with many who believe the War Powers Act, which was passed in 1973 and attempts to restrict the president's use of military force, is "unconstitutional," though that has not been fully tested in the courts."

- Our President proclaimed after winning 51 percent of the popular vote that the people have given him a mandate.

- The Executive branch, Legislative branch and Judicial branch now have a conservative majority in this country - at risk is our system of checks and balances.

2. Stringent socioeconomic controls
- see Topic of the Week last Sunday, February 13th on "Bush's Budget - Is it Ethical?"

3. Suppression of the Opposition by Force & Terror
- One could argue suppression of voters in the 2000 and 2004 elections, inclusive of questionable tactics of election fraud.

- The Patriotic Act has given authority to our government over our domestic security forces to search and seize your home as well as to arrest individuals and hold indefinitely - both without cause.

4. Social Regimentation
- An attempt by The Christian Right aligned with the Bush regime and the Republican Party to transform public policy within one religious belief system (at the exclusion of other belief systems) as the "new value system" for this country.

- There is a uniformity theme pushed by The Christian Right on the media, government leaders and the American people. All three groups have and still are catering to this uniformity...to a degree.

5. Censorship
- The alienation of specific news media reporters from the White House press corps, who tend to question and confront the Executive and Legislative branches, has been a practice of this regime since February of 2000.

- News media personnel (and media companies) who support this regime's agenda are given special access, are planted as pundits and some are actually paid as pundits, with our tax dollars, to further the current regime's objective of conservatism in their attempt to transform public policy.

6. Belligerent Nationalism & Racism
- Nationalism is now primarily "defined" in this country as unconditional support of the current regime's action and contrary opinions are looked upon as unpatriotic attacks.

- Racism is prevalent with this regime by not supporting civil liberties for Gays as well as with extreme bias of individuals with Muslim heritage.

Your Opinion?

Topic of the Week - Bush's Budget Proposal; Is it Ethical?

2005-02-13T06:31:00.000-06:00

There are some hot and controversial issues within the budget that Bush proposed last week; 150 programs targeted for cuts or elimination, making the tax cuts in Bush's first term permanent, why were social security "reform" and the escalating cost of the Iraq War not included in his budget proposal, etc. The question begs - what is really going on here?

One must identify the overarching objective by this regime that started four years ago with an actual intention of increasingly building the deficit. Yes, an intention of increasing the deficit. This underlying conservative agenda is not new (remember the Reagan deficits) and one of its primary objectives is to eliminate many social programs in order to concentrate more dollars within the conservative preferred programs; defense spending, tax incentives, faith-based programs, etc.

"Selling" cuts in social programs to Congress and the American people, without a large deficit, is virtually impossible. However, with a year by year increase in the deficit supported by the aim to increase defense spending because of the "need" to wage war, selling the need to cut social programs can now be leveraged by the conservative base in order to seemingly outline a budget that will reduce the deficit and balance the budget. It is interesting how Bush & Company are now declaring alarm on the increasing deficit. No surprise here if you truly understand the overarching objective to realign public policy in this country - it is deceptive, yet potentially effective in reaching their end result.

The end result is simply a difference in value systems in reshaping our country's foundation. Not necessarily just the value systems focused upon by the media after the election which as we know were primarily the Christian Right's religious beliefs enflamed by Karl Rove. But the additional value system differences between conservatives and progressives.

Conservatives simply believe the betterment of our country is concentrated in power within the executive branch and within larger, multi-national corporations increasing the U.S.power and dominance internationally seemingly leading to both economic and individual security domestically. Note - this conservative value system aligns with The Christian Right's belief system where the head of the household is the man and where discipline, protection and decisions are made.

Progressives simply believe the betterment of our country is a more balance of power within judicial, legislative and executive branches of government that serve all classes of people domestically and nurture foreign relations to align in a focused agenda of economic prosperity and peaceful security.

Obviously, the difference in values between conservatives and progressives is more complex. But the polarization of this country is truly a stark contrast in values and Bush's proposed budget is demonstrated in this conservative value system. All of you have been reading and will continue to read/watch the news on this topic over the coming weeks. I invite you to expand upon this topic by clicking on 'Comment' below and give your opinion.

Topic of the Week - The Christian Right on Morality in our Media

2005-02-06T08:09:00.000-06:00

On January 20th, James Dobson, former Director of Focus on the Family, the right-wing Christian Colorado Springs based ministry claimed that SpongeBob SquarePants is being used to promote a homosexual agenda. Yes, SpongeBob SquarePants. He was interviewed on Good Morning America and stated "We are protesting this cartoon and spreading the word to parents that this animated music video promotes the homosexual agenda." "Their inclusion of the reference to 'sexual identity" within their 'tolerance pledge' is not only unnecessary, but it crosses a moral line."

(Note - Dobson's ministry is awesome in scope - Focus on the Family publishes books and magazines, disseminates Dobson's weekly newspaper column to more than 500 papers, and airing radio shows—including Dobson's own—that reach people in 115 countries every week, from Japan to Botswana and in languages from Spanish to Zulu. The ministry receives so much mail it has its own ZIP code).

This is just one example of The Christian Right's well orchestrated, organized campaign to put pressure on the Bush administration and the FCC in refining the rules on "morality and the American Family" in our media. The Christian Right's agenda regarding the gay community, incorporating their Christian values into mainstream media and promoting their many other issues on redefining the FCC indecency law is vast. Their letter writing campaigns, telemarketing campaigns, grass roots campaigns, etc. are being conducted daily by The Christian Right to refine the "rules of decency" in our media through this pressure on the FCC and the Bush administration. For more information on the FCC Indecency Law click on http://www.fcc.gov/eb/broadcast/opi.html

My opinion? As consumers, we have a choice - either watch a specific show on television or switch the channel and/or turn off the TV. Please don't claim how television programming, radio listening, magazines, newspapers and all other media is adversely affecting morality in America or how it is coercing children's minds. As parents, it is your home and you are responsible for your kids television viewing and/or values you teach your children - don't blame it on the media and take personal responsibility yourselves. My two cents.

Your opinion? Click on 'Comments' below.

p.s. Michael Powell, Chairman of the FCC, announced his resignation on January 21st. Powell is the son of Colin Powell and was arguably the most conservative FCC chairperson within the last 25 years. A new chairperson has not been named, but I do encourage you to keep a close eye on potential candidates - selecting a more conservative FCC chairperson is rumored in Washington circles. To contact the FCC on your opinion, general information, inquiries & complaints: fccinfo@fcc.gov.

Topic of the Week - The Christian Right on Public Forum

2005-01-30T14:27:00.000-06:00

This week's topic is intended to raise initial discussion and awareness on The Christian Right's agenda on promoting their values and religion in public forums & places funded primarily by tax dollars; schools, libraries, court houses, etc.

Some very hot, contested issues are taking place all over the country:

1. Whether the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional based on the reference to "under God" which calls into question the separation of Church & State.
2. Whether the Ten Commandments should be displayed in court houses and other public places funded primarily by tax dollars.
3. Whether references to the Christian God is appropriate by our Political leaders in public speeches specific to policy issues.
4. And many, many more contested issues between the separation of church & state in public forum ...

Our country is at one of the most critical turning points in history (my opinion) in heading down a path where our policy issues are attempting to be reformed to reflect a conservative foundation. Within this conservative foundation is an incredible, organized effort to unify Church & State by attempting to leverage our Constitution as a basis that our country was founded as a Christian country.

The Christian Right has used this strategy brilliantly - I have to give them credit for this. They have taken a secular document and have pulled piece after piece out of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and re-interpret and promote a stance to reinforce their position. In addition, they have defined secularism as humanism and humanism as a religion ... and thus, use Christian principles and ethics established by our founding fathers as a way to "fight" and support their position that Christianity (in their form) should be incorporated into public policy, public education and public place because Christianity is the true basis of our government, not the "religion" of secularism/humanism.

Herein lies the distinction(s):

- All religions (or almost all) have an underpinning belief of an afterlife - defined simply as life after death. Secularism is not humanism. And secularism in our government doctrine is focused on human life as we know it on this earth, within our country. The Christian Right tries to classify secularism as humanism and humanism as a religion. This is not so.
- In addition, with religion based on striving for an afterlife, most religions, especially the Christian Right's religion, defines the afterlife as either heaven or hell. Thus, this then leads to a tendency to tap into people's highest fears and anxieties - whether or not they will go to heaven or hell.
- What the Religious Right doesn't tell people, and what tragically many Americans apparently don't know, is that when it comes to determining what the laws of the United States mean, the only document that matters is the Constitution. The Constitution, a completely secular document, contains no references to God, Jesus or Christianity. It says absolutely nothing about the United States being officially Christian. The Religious Right's constant appeals to documents like the Declaration of Independence, which contains a deistic reference to "the Creator," and preceded the Constitution by nine years, cloud the issue and make some people believe their rights spring from these other documents.
- Many governments believe in the union of church & state and one could strongly argue these governments (i.e. Saudi Arabia) do not support civil liberties, personal choice and freedom of speech and press.

So, lets go back to the hotly contested issues of the Pledge of Allegiance, Ten Commandments, political leaders referencing a Christian God in speeches (and policies). I would be most interested to hear people's opinions on all contested issues. What do you think?

Topic of the Week - Hatred, Hubris, and The Christian Right

2005-01-22T07:18:00.000-06:00

“Hatred is the most accessible and comprehensive of all unifying agents”
Eric Hoffer

WHY THE HATE? A significant number of fundamentalists in American today seem bereft of their touted Christian love and instead seem to radiate hate towards everything and everyone who does not share or match their beliefs. They reject the very world they find themselves in and live in hope of its destruction and their removal from it. They distain those who do not believe as they do. They hate specific groups like gays with often surprising intensity. They hate the government that is not exclusionary. They condemn churches that are inclusionary. They abhor those who do not take the Bible literally. They hate schools that are secular and scientific. They hate women’s rights. They condemn sex except for procreation. They may even hate dancing and music. They certainly hate the corruption of Hollywood and those they label Liberals. While this is certainly far from true for all Conservative Christians many of whom are repelled by the intensity of their more vehement fellow believers, the hate emanating from the Right, both religious and secular, is becoming palatable and tainting all who can be even loosely identified with it.

Targets are endless these days: Roe v. Wade one week, children's cartoon characters the next. Their condemnation is vitriolic, virulent, and unforgiving. This is not a voice Jesus would recognize. This is not love towards one another. This is not doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. This is vengeful and exclusionary and it will poison the very soul of America if left unchecked.

In Lincoln’s 2nd Inaugural Address he said: "with malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right." Lincoln prayed not that God would be on his side or the Union’s side, but rather hoped fervently that we were on God’s side. What hubris is it that makes so many Fundamentalists so sure they speak for America and God, that they are the chosen ones and are thus free to condemn as they see fit? They drag God into politics and thus demean Him by saying he belongs to them and them alone.

This holy hubris, this certitude, this certainty of who is to be condemned and who is worthy to be saved is at odds with not only the essential nature of democracy but with Jesus himself. You cannot have equality and fairness and be exclusionary at the same time. You cannot be both authoritarian and welcome voices of descent. Our Declaration of Independence declared all men to be created equal and endowed with certain unalienable rights to be secured by a government deriving its just powers from the people--the consent of the governed. We are a democracy of many religious voices here in America. All of WE THE PEOPLE are meant to be represented, conservative as well as liberal, Deist as well as atheistic, Jewish as well as Muslim. We co-exist in this country to the envy of the world because of our carefully constructed democracy. Hate has been minimized up until now.

God cares for our souls not our votes. He will not gather up the worthy because Republicans are in power not Democrats. How audacious would we be to presume that He sets His agenda by America’s four year presidential cycle, or that He equates a Constitutional Amendment on Marriage to a psalm written in praise of Him, or that burning an abortion clinic is some sort of modern sacrifice honoring His name. God has not appeared with a new set of instruction in the last few thousand years and his first set, the Bible, is dated in many respects. Even those who believe He has spoken more recently like the Mormons have no up-to-date rulebook condemning the evils of Sponge Bob. The lessons we have been given are about living a moral life as kind and caring individual who honors God not about securing legislation marginalizing portions of the population for perceived sins.

Many of today’s Christian conservatives are bringing their self-righteousness to public policy. What is right for them is right for all. School prayer—Christian prayer-- is right by their standards but requiring daily reading from the Koran would be wrong, as would a daily Buddhist meditation for our public school children. They would ban same sex marriage because their faith condemns it and they see no problem in thus denying civil rights to a portion of the population as a result. They would remove science facts from textbooks that are at odds with their biblical views because they know in no uncertain terms that their view of the world is absolutely correct. They have a right to these choices in their private religious schools and can make these dogmas a requirement of their church members but they have no claim on America as a whole. Religious freedom guaranteed in our Constitution means religious freedom for all for. Our cherished document expressly protects and limits religion in America. It extends protection to members of all religions to worship as they please, but our Constitution also wisely keeps holy hubris and political power safely separated.

Hate is the unavoidable by-product of religious self-righteousness. It is a flame that once it is lit may prove impossible to extinguish. We were lucky that those led our American Revolution were not only strongly influenced by the Enlightenment, but were able to maintain its benevolent rationalism. They remembered well the religious wars in the countries they had left behind. A few years later in France, however, inflamed zealots released a firestorm of hatred that eventually consumed even the original revolutionary firebrands. Today Israel and Palestine burst into flames every other month, Sudan is devouring parts of its population with its brand of religious hatred, and even Northern Ireland has embers of hatred that still glow. This is the price of religious certitude when mixed with government.

Those on the religious right who condemn and exclude are feeding a new religious hatred in America. Recently they ignited flames of indignation against gays , for example, as a way to unite their followers in an effort to influence the election.
It worked--for hatred does indeed unify---but at what cost?

Topic of the Week - The Selection of the DNC Chairperson

2005-01-19T21:05:00.000-06:00

I would like to request each of you to take action on the most important current element in opposing the policies and regime of Bush/Cheney and The Christian Right - the selection of the new chairperson for Democratic National Committee (DNC) on February 12th. How the Democratic Party transitions after the 2004 elections is most critical in re-establishing the foundation and value of the party. The Chairperson selected will be the person who defines this transition and future for the DNC. I believe this is the most important, immediate issue facing us today in combating the Christian Right's political agenda and that is why it is the "Topic of the Week."

My vote goes to Howard Dean. Putting aside the media hype on Dean's "I have a Scream" speech after the Iowa primary, one must look closely at Dean's platform, agenda and organizational ability in evaluating his candidacy for DNC chair.

The bottom line? Dean "gets it."Many Democrats in Washington and throughout state governments throughout the United States believe the party needs to become more "Republican," more religious. This is wrong, and Howard Dean knows this.

The Democratic Party has always had a value base that is moral, ethical and truly spiritual (not religious). And Dean understands that positioning the DNC platform (as it always has been) is the key. Unfortunately, Al Gore and John Kerry did not take this platform and deliver a consistent Democratic message - they delivered mixed messages. Dean's platform was always consistent and as he stated below in a recent interview in supporting the Democratic platform of "Stronger at Home, Respected in the World:"

"The Democratic Party will not win elections or build a lasting majority solely by changing its rhetoric, nor will we win by adopting the other side's positions," he said. "We must say what we mean -- and mean real change when we say it." "The Democratic Party needs a vibrant, forward-thinking, long-term presence in every single state and we must be willing to contest every race at every level. We will only win when we show up and fight for the issues important to all of us."

Dean is a fighter - he knows how to attack the radical conservatives, The Christian Right and current regime in Washington, and he knows the importance of fighting for Democracy at a federal level, state level and local level.Dean also knows it will take a massive effort in organizing and to promote a consistent message and heighten awareness both within the party, with the base of the party as well as with moderates (both Democrat and Republican moderates). And Dean has an excellent track record of building a grass root base and actually already has an incredible "machine" in place to build upon. In addition:

— The DNC Chair must be a proven fundraiser.
— The DNC Chair must be an inspirational leader who will rally our base of supporters.
— The DNC Chair must be an articulate spokesperson for our party and ready to fight for our Democratic ideals.
— The DNC chair must have expertise in managing a large and complex organization.
— The DNC chair must have vision and the ability to utilize new techniques and methods so that we can win both the House and Senate majority less than two years from now.

Dean fits the bill. Dean is not too liberal, he is progressive. He is not too left-wing, he is Democratic. He is a Reformist.

DNC members will pick a successor to outgoing Chairman Terry McAuliffe at a meeting February 12 in Washington, D.C. I encourage each of you to click on this link and fill-out the petition to select Howard Dean as the new DNC Chairperson - http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/deanfordnc

And/or give us your comments and reasons for voting against or for Howard Dean by clicking on "Comments" below.

The COMFORT Conundrum

2005-01-16T15:30:00.000-06:00

Here is the conundrum facing Democrats and liberals: how can we counter the COMFORT conservative religious groups are offering?

Stress, uncertainty, and fear make most us wishful for a return to the safe embrace of a parent's strength and guidance--at least for a moment or two. We want to be comforted, reassured that if we falter someone will keep us standing and guide us to safety or at least help us make wise choices. Americans today are stress by our fast-paced life and the mounting costs of reaching or keeping the American Dream. We face continued uncertainty about jobs, and audacity of the 9-11 attack has certainly has left each of us with a residue of fear. Where are we to find comfort?

The dictionary defines COMFORT as doing something to make troubles easier to bear or to give hope or strength. COMFORT comes from the root words meaning together + strength.

Todays large Christian churches embrace their members like benevolent parents who have all the answers. They welcome you as prodigal children who will be forgiven for past sins and then give you a place at the table. Within their walls people come together and are strengthened. With the exception of Barak Obama's speech, comfort and hope were in short supply in this year's Democratic rhetoric. Furthermore, Kerry ,by expounding on Republican failures, inadvertently increased fear rather than soothing it . Bush on the other hand seemed to offer the comfort of the familiar and an aura of safety--at least here in America.

In the not too recent past Democrats were the ones providing a twentieth-century update to the embrace and security pledged in our Constitution: 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. Democrats beat the Depression, won WWII, gave Americans not only Social Security but a wealth of agencies and rules to protect us (SEC, FICA, HHS, EPA, Clean water and AIr Act, etc). But as the old adage goes: so what have you done for us lately? And what can we answer? What sense of security and comfort are we providing? Government as a benevolent entity has been tarnished and vilified--especially by Conservatives. Liberal churches and synagogs offer only the faintest of voices these days.

The current administration loves to create a crisis and then exploit the fear it engenders whether it be a War on Terrorism or a Social Security scam. They know how to drive anxious people into their camp with prepackaged solutions. At the same time the certainty offered by evangelical churches seems also more and more appealing. How can Democrats and Liberals, both religious and secular, rebuild the promise and security of good government and reassert the values of Liberalism? How can we be the ones offering comfort and safety?

Immediately we must begin by fighting for signature Democratic programs like Social Security by exposing the Republican scams to destroy it and similar safety nets or protections . I read recently that by agreeing to "fix" social security instead of fighting for it we are admitting indirectly that Democrats need to be fixed, that we too are somehow a failure if our signature program is failing. When Republicans say Social Security will not be the "expected comfort in old age" and only the Republicans new privatization plan can, we lose. We also lose when we cannot explain why Democrat's fight for the environment is benevolent for all. Liberal churches need to sell the kind of comfort they offer which is not one of quick easy answers, exclusion, and often bigotry--the circling of the wagons so to speak--but the comfort provided by the welcoming and acknowledgment of the wider community and our common humanity. Rather than offering the comfort of the all-knowing parent that treats us as children, liberal churches can reassure us in our abilities to face our problems as not only as individuals but with the help of our friends and fellow citizens no matter what their religious affiliation. We must give courage and hope.

But we also need to relentlessly pound Republicans for their failed ethical behavior. Their record is dismal across the board and their family values are a sham. We have to make the case that if Republicans, corporations, etc., do not play by the rules we will all lose in the end as the system itself will fail. We are comforted only when we can trust those in power. We have to make the case that if we let religious conservatives start to exclude and vilify one group of Americans (gays) we will all feel that terrible chill of uncertainty that arises when you suspect that if one neighbor can be shunned and discriminated against, we are all vulnerable to being pushed out of the protected circle. We need to make the case that when Bush bullies or ignores other countries when they are in crisis they will not be their for us in our time of need; it is a comfort to have friends and allies. It is a comfort to be in harmony with the world. It is a comfort to have a strong army but not if they are bogged down in a losing war. It is a comfort to know we are keeping are air and water clean and that maybe we can hold off global warming. Democrats have to make Americans believe again not only in the ability of science and government to solve problems but we have to reassure them that we are better when we, as a community, are working together for the common good That is a true comfort. We must stop the direction we are heading in. We must not be a country which divides and vilifies. We must stop breeding mistrust of our fellow Americans. That is the comfort we as Democrats must offer.

Topic of the Week - The Christian Right and the Environment - "Dominion Theology"

2005-01-09T11:26:00.000-06:00

Most people do not realize how much affect The Christian Right has on the environmental policy of this country. A large percentage of The Christian Right believes in Dominion Theology. Simply meaning that God gave dominion over the earth to Adam & Eve (dominion meaning supreme authority). Thus, with the belief in the second coming of Jesus Christ and Judgment Day, The Christian Right believes in a finite life to our planet realizing in a disregard for the environment. The Bush Administration has catered to this belief system.

The following subtext of a speech given by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., as taken from the Common Wealth Club's web site, outlines the travesty of the Bush Administration's record on the environment as well as acknowledges the Dominion Theology belief of The Christian Right. Kennedy also outlines why protecting our environment is indeed Christian and Spiritual. I encourage all of you to read the subtext of Kennedy's speech below.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. - September 9, 2004
CRIMES AGAINST NATURE: HOW THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION IS UNDERMINING AMERICA’S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONSRobert F. Kennedy Jr., Senior Attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council; President, Waterkeeper Alliance; Author, Crimes Against Nature

I have been an environmental advocate for 20 years, and I've been disciplined during that period about being nonpartisan in my approach to this issue. The worst thing that can happen to the environment is if it becomes the province of a single political party. Most of the environmental leaders in our country agree with me. Five years ago, if you asked the leaders of the major environmental groups in America, What's the gravest threat to the global environment?, they would have given you a range of answers: overpopulation, habitat destruction, global warming. Today, they will all tell you one thing: It's George W. Bush. This is the worst environmental president that we have ever had. You simply cannot speak honestly about the environment in any context today without speaking critically about this president. If you go to the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) web site, you will see over 400 major environmental rollbacks that have been promoted by this administration over the last three and half years. It is a concerted, deliberate attempt to eviscerate 30 years of environmental law. It is a stealth attack, one that's been hidden from the public.

This administration has taken the "conserve" out of conservatism.

They claim to embrace Christianity while violating the manifold mandates of Christianity: that we are stewards of the land, and that we are meant to care for nature. They have embraced this Christian hearsay of dominion theology, which James Watt was the first to enunciate when he told the Senate, I don't think that there is any point in protecting the public lands because we don't how long the world is going to last before the Lord returns. The woman he mentored for 20 years, Gale Norton, is running the Department of the Interior.

The reason that we protect nature is not for the sake of the fishes and the birds but for our own sake, because nature enriches us. It enriches us economically, yes, the base of our economy, and we ignore that at our peril. But it also enriches us aesthetically and recreationally, culturally and historically, and spiritually. Human beings have other appetites besides money, and if we don't feed them we're not going to become the kind of beings that our Creator intended. When we destroy nature we impoverish ourselves, we diminish ourselves and we impoverish our children. We're not protecting those ancient forests in the Pacific Northwest, as Rush Limbaugh loves to say, for the sake of a spotted owl. We are protecting those forests because we believe that the trees have more value to humanity standing than they would have if we cut them down. I'm not fighting for the Hudson for the sake of the shad or the sturgeon or the striped bass, but because I believe my life will be richer; my children, my community will be richer if we live in a world where there are shad and sturgeon and striped bass in the Hudson.

Franklin Roosevelt said that the domination of our nation by large corporations is the definition of fascism. I have an American Heritage Dictionary. The definition, if you look up fascism, says, "the domination of government by large corporations driven by right-wing ideology and bellicose nationalism"- that's getting to look pretty familiar. The problem with letting large corporations dominate our government is that it erodes democracy, it erodes our capacity to participate in public life, our capacity for dignity, and it allows these entities to squander resources that belong to our children. But the thing that we've squandered worst of all is our natural heritage: the air that we breathe, the water that we drink, the wildlife, the lands - all these things that make us proud to be American.

To view the entire speech by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., go to http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/04/04-09kennedy-speech.html

How the Christian Right is Attempting to Transform Public Policy

2004-12-25T17:19:00.000-06:00

Conservative Christians have been a part of the political landscape of American society for the better part of the twentieth century. The roots of this movement grew out of the Fundamentalist movement which emerged in the early part of the century as a response to the theological relativization of "Modernism" within the mainline Protestant churches. With the advent of Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority in 1973, modern day Christian religious political conservatism emerged in force.

However, the major advancement of Christianity and Politics with the conservative populace truly took form with the formation of the Christian Coalition which originated in 1989 in Lexington, Virginia under the leadership of Pat Robertson. Ralph Reed became Executive Director of Robertson's "Christian" Coalition in 1989 until his departure in 1997 and led the coalition in what many describe as "stealth" politics in focusing on school boards and communities in organizing a massive grass roots campaign with intent to influence public policy. Today, Roberta Combs is the President and carries on the strategy developed by Reed.

As a political organization, the Christian Coalition does not have an explicit set of theological beliefs. Rather, the Coalition pursues a political agenda that its founder believes to be consistent with Christian doctrine. While prohibited by federal law from participating in partisan politics, the political views and agenda of the Christian Coalition are well known. They have had a profound impact on politics and especially the Republican party. The Christian Coalition supported the 104th Congress' "Contract With America." When the Christian Coalition unveiled their own "Contract with the American Family" virtually every conservative Congressman and Senator was on hand for the press conference. The "Contract With the American Family" embodies the Christian Coalition's beliefs. Specifically, it states that the Christian Coalition seeks to protect the sanctity of life through its anti-abortion stance and to reaffirm traditional family values by opposing the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) that would provide equal rights for women and gays. The Contract would also restrict pornography and profanity, as well as promote their definition of family values within the media landscape. The Contract With the American Family also seeks to blur the Constitutional doctrine of separation of church and state by amending the Constitution to include the Religious Equality Amendment that would "allow voluntary, student and citizen-initiated free speech in non-compulsory settings such as courthouse lawns, high school graduation ceremonies, and sports events."

The Christian Coalition spurred momentum, participation and increased sophistication in the Evangelical movement in the mid-90's. Prior to the 90's, publicly with media elements, Billy Graham's evangelical platform was born in the 70's, Jim & Tammy Baker and Jimmy Swaggert capitalized (financially) on the Evangelical movement in the 80's and in the 90's, many influential evangelical organizations emerged and have tremendous influence today. These organizations, such as James Dobson's Focus on the Family a Colorado Springs based ministry, are awesome in scope. Focus on the Family publishes books and magazines, disseminates Dobson's weekly newspaper column to more than 500 papers, and airing radio shows—including Dobson's own—that reach people in 115 countries every week, from Japan to Botswana and in languages from Spanish to Zulu. The ministry receives so much mail it has its own ZIP code. In 2004, Dobson proselytized hard for George Bush, organizing huge stadium rallies and using his radio program to warn his 7 million American listeners that not to vote would be a sin. Dobson may have delivered Bush his victories in Ohio and Florida.

Another of the most influential evangelicals is John Stott, framer of the Lausanne Covenant and Lausanne II, the organizing document for modern Evangelicalism, who has written 40 books that have sold in millions, and has traveled the world preaching and teaching. Stott says he practices thoughtful allegiance' to scripture, and he does not believe good and evil can be relativized. Taking a more moderate approach to Evangelicism, Stott tends to temper a stringent fundamentalist belief as preached by Dobson. Stott wrote Basic Christianity which has sold over three million copies in more than fifty languages. From his home base of All Souls Church in London's West End, he has helped shaped the moderate face of Evangelicalism around the world and has tremendous influence in the United States' Evangelical movement. In general, the evolving and somewhat conflicting forms of Evangelicism as demonstrated by Stott and Dobson are prevalent in the United States today.

The Christian Right is not solely defined as the Christian Coalition or Evangelical Church - the conservative Catholics and other Christian denominations are also included as part of the Christian Right. With Evangelicals estimated at 40 percent of the U.S. population, Catholics estimated at 25 percent, the other Christian denominations make-up the rest of the 76.5 percent of Americans who identify themselves as Christians. Estimates of the conservative Christian percentage have been approximated between 45-47 percent ...and growing.

Why is this background on the Christian Right relevant in today's political landscape? The Republican Party, as we know it today, has evolved in response to the Christian conservative movement. Organized, active and with an intention to transform public policy accordingly with their values and belief systems, herein lies the underlying motivation of the Christian Right. And with the support of the Republican party, the Christian Right has become the major force in today's political landscape.

The objective of this Blog is to stimulate discussion and raise awareness of the conservative Christian political movement. Its goal is not to necessarily attack the Christian Right's agenda, or Christians in general, but rather to understand the value and belief systems of the Christian Right and how our current regime in Washington D.C., and the Republican party on a whole, has reframed political language, rhetoric, media control, judicial appointments and economic influence to increase the allegiance of the Christian Right. Politically, this allegiance of the Christian Right to the Republican party has one common objective; to define public policy in terms of their value system based on literal interpretations of the Bible, primarily the New Testament, for the seemingly "good" of America on a whole.

By raising awareness and understanding the strategy and language/rhetoric utilized by the Republican party and Christian Right through their media outlets, as well as through personal interactions and discussions from a grass roots level, the rest of America can respond in reframing and promoting their values and public policy objectives in a manner consistent to what is believed to be the true foundation of the United States - freedom of individual choice & speech and equal rights for all.

It is important to organize, mobilize and be a powerful, alternative voice to the Christian Right. It is important to clarify and share values in contrast or comparison to the Christian Right. It is important to be a "watch dog" on stealth tactics used to transform public policy at the local, state and federal level. It is important to challenge rhetoric, language and actions of the Christian Right masked in piety and manipulation in order to further their cause. It is important to protect and enhance civil liberties and personal choice in response to the Christian Right's platform on Gay rights, a women's right to choose and separation of church & state respective of public funding, public space and our public educational system. And one element we can use to organize in heightening awareness is through this Blog - The Christian Wrong.

Do you believe Howard Dean should be the new Democratic National Committee Chairperson?
	YES
	NO

Free polls from Pollhost.com