Sorry. Can't agree with you there. In my humble opinion, I think you're being a little melodramatic. I think the thing you are forgetting is that those people that tend to be "uber-religious" (for lack of a better phrase) are also staunch supporters of the Constitution of the United States.

The only way you will be "forced to kneel before their self-created idol" is if radical Islam is allowed to takeover the Western world.

Religious fundamentalism is the source of an incredible share of suffering in today's world. If only those who claim to exalt Jesus would live as he did, people the world over would respect and love them.

Diesel- The uber-religious are not 'staunch supporters' of the Constitution. I don't know where you get that? If you ask them which document they would choose, the Bible or the Constitution, they will say the Bible. When you tell them that the Constitution allows them to choose the Bible without government interference, and therefore they should choose the Constitution over the Bible, they will insist the Bible is the better document and will still choose it over the Constitution.

The only reason religious moderates exist today is because of the advancements in science and reason, not because of a better understanding of religious texts, as some would like to believe. In other words, religion has had to adjust to the realities of scientific discovery and the kind of culture such discoveries spawn, e.g. secular thought.

Fundamentalists refuse to accept the realities of such thought and therefore consider themselves true believers. Moderates are just half-ass believers and don't deserve to be followers, according to fundamentalists. That's why Christian conservatives claim you have to be 'born-again' in order to be saved, even if you already belong to, say, the Lutheran church, because simply being born and raised Lutheran and attending some nice little Lutheran church in Minnesota where you mind your own business isn't enough. You have to be a fundamentalist... a born-again, or true believer.

This is something I have told people for quite some time. These fundis have missed one of the most important ideas in the Bible. Mankind was created in the image of GOD. These people have created GOD in their image. Gays and the Bible: 1 GOD did not think the subject was important enough to include it in the Ten Commandments. 2 Jesus never spoke on the subject, not what was written down anyway. 3 The Apostles wrote about the subject, but the 2-3 times they mentioned it, it was included in a list of other sins. No where did they say that homosexuality was worse than the other sins.

Dear God, whose Name I do not know, please protect me from your followers. Amen

It is not "radical Islam" that we need to fear -- it is fundamentalism of any stripe. I was raised in a relatively strict Roman Catholic household, and I, too, wonder what happened to the Beatitudes -- and why do the fundies base so much of their ideology on the Old Testament? But once one is "saved" there is no reasoning....there is no there there.

Well done Sid, Ray, Anais, Christopher, and W.D.Russell, you do exist! I was beginning to feel alone in a sea of fungi’s - like Red Tide, if you breath it in it's harmful... If we were to build hospitals and schools in Iraq the Iraqi people would have done what we can never do with war. If you need faith to make your life meaningful then have faith in your self and build a world of love and not hate.

Perhaps I should just ignore these people, but they are beginning to scare me. Not annoy, nor anger, nor disgust me. Frighten me.

No, absolutely you should not ignore these people. The religious right's alliance with conservative republicans is a powerful one and dangerous for our country.

Here's one reason.

For democracy to work well, voters need to think critically and weigh evidence with an open mind. Only then will the majority make good decisions.

As it stands now, the substantial numbers of evangelicals who ally themselves with the Republicans (20% of the country or more?) base their votes on either a) what the pastor says (perhaps in return for government grants), b) red-herring wedge issues like abortion or gay rights (I don't believe the Bushes really care about these things -- they just use them to push people's buttons), or c) the public religiosity of the candidates.

That is not the way to get the best government. On the contrary, it allows corrupt and incompetent hypocrites to gain public office. And demeans the public dialog we need for our country to move forward.

True democracy is a secular heresy. While I don't think Mr. barnhart should be frightened at the moment, keep your finger on the pulse of the people he's talking about. They represent the America of Salem Village, not Philadelphia.

What a silly tirade. Where is the evidence for his silly fears? In the latest home-made bomb the Baptists have delivered to a Federal Judge? There haven't been any. Is his evidence the masked suicide bombers marching in our streets, holding their Scofield Study Bibles high? There aren't any. Maybe it's the drive-by shootings, where the zealots scream out, 'Jesus is Lord!'....well, there haven't been any of those either.

Man....get a life....

I too have become increasingly frightened as I read more about the Christian Reconstructionist movement, whose hard-core members endorse the stoning of gays, witches, those guilty of adultry, heretics, non-believers and disobedient children. I kid you not. In their world view, the Bible trumps the Constitution, and like the Catholic Inquisitors of old, ANYTHING can be allowed if it leads to saving souls, including torture, repression, etc.

Thank God I’m an atheist!

My biggest fear of fundamentalists of any stripe is that they are conditioned from childhood to accept without question some particular package of ideas. People who grow up this way almost never develop the ability to see the truth because information must always be filtered through their fundamental belief system. It reminds me of when I was in Seventh-Day Adventist elementary school 30 years ago and the dinosaur rage was really starting. We were taught that dinosaurs were the evil product of gene manipulation before the flood and were a primary reason why God had to destroy the world. When confronted with evidence of an ancient earth, we were told God created the earth with the look of age in order to test our faith in the Bible. We were basically innoculated against anything that would have caused us to question our beliefs.

Where this plays in to the national political scene is that those who are fundamentalist Christians today trust George Bush implicitly because he is a born again Christian. Criticism of him and his administration is seen as Christian persecution. Further, these people so believe in the coming apocolypse that they will not step up and fulfill their duty as Americans and as citizens of this planet to speak out against the atrocities and outrageous leadership that could actually lead us straight into apocolyptic world war. I think they would actually welcome this because they are so anxious for Jesus to come (or for the rapture, depending on the view of their particular sect) that they would be rejoicing that Heaven was near. Violence against Christians anywhere in the world is tracked, reported and touted as proof that the end is near - but never critically examined to determine the true cause. For example, Christians are up in arms about the Sudan, not because China, in its roll on the U.N. Security Council is blocking intervention in order to protect its access to Sudanese oil, but because the people being slaughtered are Christians. If it was the Christians slaughtering the Muslims I dare say they wouldn't be interested in the issue at all.

In short, I believe fundamentalism clouds people's reasoning and results in the creation of a highly manipulatable population that is at least to some extent unable to participate intelligently and responsibly in self-government. The fear of Christians under normal circumstances would be ridiculous, but with an administration like our current one, which is clearly so willing to manipulate these people to gain the power necessary achieve truly evil things, we all need to pay close attention.

Let us not forget there is a group in America that steadfastly refuses to open its heart to Jesus. A group of people who are not simply lapsed Christians, but teach their children every day that Jesus is not devine, or the Son o' God, at most, he is the author of some rather nice sayings. Are you willing to trust the influence of a group that consistently and completely deny Jesus as their Saviour? These people are the Jews. Can we possibly tolerate in our midst such apostasy? What kind of example is this for our children?

Listen to a prominent Phd.'s thoughts on the subject.

Excellent topic. AND the reason I was offended that someone on the Dist. 16 topic was looking for someone to take on Frank Morse.

If there is an excellent candidate who could run a positive campaign on issues and voting record,that would be one thing.

But why anyone who posts here would want one of the co-sponsors of SB 1000 (a Republican at that!) removed from the legislature simply for partisan reasons is beyond me. Did you not hear what he said on the subject? People like that are needed in the GOP if it is ever to go back to sanity (speaking as someone raised in a Republican family).

In 1992 some of us used to annoy some of the anti-gay folks by saying "Fine. If you are going to quote that list of bad behaviors at the end of the 1st chapter of Romans, why not put the whole list on the ballot? It might make life difficult for gays but it would also outlaw many practices of the OCA ("maliciousness, deceit, whisperers, proud, boastful", among others) and other obnoxious groups. That generally ended the argument and the people would walk away.

"a little melodramatic"? How about this gem?:

Not all Christians back 'Justice Sunday'

[copyrighted and mis-tagged comment deleted. -Editor.]

Moose, are this satirical or for real? Good Grief!

Apparently REF never heard about the thousands of death threats that Christian extremists sent to federal judges during the Terri Schiavo situation. Or the Christian fundamentalists who attempted to firebomb a West Virginia grade school that dared to include evolution and sex education in its curriculum. Or the clinic workers who were shot and killed by "pro-life" Christians. Or the Christians who threatened the atheist who challenged "under God" in the Pledge. Or the Jewish family in Alabama that was hounded and threatened because they objected to mandatory Christian prayers at the local high school. Or the Republican senator from Oklahoma who endorsed the death penalty for abortion providers. Or his colleague from Texas who made a thinly-veiled threat of violence against "activist" judges. The list goes on and on and it's pretty clear that Christian radicals can be just as bloodthirsty and dangerous as their Islamic counterparts.

Here's the limited edition, commemorative Justice Sunday II program.

As a recovering a fundimentalist I really identify with your sentiments. Having battled the bible thumpers in the 80's over "porn" and watching Robertson's political rise, I said for many years he was the most dangerous man in the US. Reed's "Stealth candidate" comment scared the bejessus out of me! I do think his influence has been reduced with the growth of the internet, but not to a great degree. Theo-cons/ neo-cons- both groups are a threat to the US that I want my Grandson to experience.

"When someone shows you who they are, believe them." Maya Angelou

Seek out the company of those who are searching for the truth. But avoid at all cost those who claim to have found it!

No, I am not joking. While a huge number of Americans can (and will) simply slip back into church and yell "Lord,Lord" if their jobs or getting a loan depends on it, Jews will not be able to do such a thing, and if asked, cannot even be equivocal about the subject; they do not accept Jesus as their personal Saviour. Theological differences between Christian sects (other than Mormons and Catholics) can be papered over for the sake of political unaminity. But how the hell are we going to be a "Christian Nation" with all those demned Jews rejecting Jesus' devine embrace? Huh? Well? And be aware: these are not your ordinary backsliders, who can easily be brought into line with a little economic or social pressure, these are people who have had the chance to get with the devine program for 2,000 years and dug in their heels, like whats-his-names donkey. If you want to make America a Christian Nation, first thing you gotta do is get rid of the Jews. And when I think of the rate at which they marry schicksas I could plotz! There is something just not Kosher about it. So tell me, what are we gonna do about the Jews? Now I remember! Baalam, that was the guy with the recalcitrant ass.

An article in today's New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/15/politics/politicsspecial1/15faith.html) about Justice Sunday fits well in this conversation. One quote: "Speaking at the Justice Sunday telecast, Phyllis Schlafly, the veteran Christian conservative organizer, asked: 'How do the judges get away with such outrageous decisions? By asserting that Supreme Court decisions are the supreme law of the land. But you know that is not true. That is a terrible heresy.'" The "supreme law of the land" which Phyllis Schlafly believes it is a "terrible heresy" to supercede is the law of God.

Another quote: "Mr. Donohue of the Catholic League and others warned the Democrats not to discriminate against Judge Roberts because of his Catholic faith. They argued that any questions about his personal views of moral issues, especially abortion, would constitute discrimination because those issues fall within the teachings of the church." This supports my earlier point that any criticism of a public official that claims to be a Christian is immediately perceived by Christians as persecution. This misconception innoculates believers against considering other points of view and perhaps falling away from the faith should something outside the teachings of the church make more logical, scientific, humanitarian, spiritual, or political sense than the line they are feeding to believers. It also serves as a handy political tool for the current administration.

A funny thing about those Ten Commandments... after you read past that tenth one, it just keeps on going and going and going... "Ten Commandments" is more of a "Readers Digest" excerpt of the literally hundreds of commandments given.

The person of faith who accepts a "plurality of belief" is an oxymoron; that person doesn't know what to believe, by definition.

Check this Web site out... for all those gays looking to be "rescued".

So, is there one Christian out there honest enough to tell me how we are going to make America a Christian nation without getting rid of the Jews, or at least forbidding them the vote, or the privilege of holding office, or a drivers license. I don't see how we can be a Christian nation with a large group of influential, affluent, non-Christian efluvia in our very midst! I mean, right in the middle of our very midst! Can we allow that, or this, as the case may be?

"What happens when we necessarily refuse?"

It's always the same when we refuse.

Daniel was thrown into a den of lions because he prayed to the "wrong" god. Galileo was placed under house arrest because he claimed the church's doctrine was false. A century or so ago, the Mormons in Missouri were ordered to be "exterminated or driven from the state" by the good Christian governor.

It won't matter if you are Jewish, Atheist, Muslim, Mormon, Catholic, Southern Baptist, Methodist, or whatever. If you don't do what they say to do, or if you even publicly express a differing opinion, they will crucify you. Galileo got off easy.

Paul, just how are you defining "Christians"?

Well with posts like these, I can assure you that Democrats will never win back the Christian vote. Christians are just misled or stupid, right? And if only they could see the light, they'd all vote Democrat, right?

If a Methodist or a Congregationalist or a Baptist dares to run as a Democrat will they not attract people from their own denominations because Robertson, Falwell et. al have seized the right to determine who is a "Christian"?

In 1981 I was talking to someone who belongs to the Baptist church which Mark Hatfield attended when he live in Salem. It is American Baptist, far different than S. Baptist. (Never forget there are so many varieties of Baptist that both Jesse Jackson and Jerry Falwell were ordained Baptist ministers, and that Jimmy Carter is not the only Baptist ever elected as a Democrat. ) Jerry Falwell had held a rally on the capitol steps in Salem, and this person said Falwell didn't have a clue what it meant to be a Christian. Someone from Western Baptist Bible College had written a guest opinion about being unhappy with a video shown by Falwell's group that same week--it downgraded Billy Graham and showed Falwell had a problem with the Beatitude about peacemakers. If someone wants to define "Christian" as following the Gospel or the Sermon on the Mount, that is fine. But there is a difference between those who think we are all God's children and "as ye do to the least of them...." not to mention "love thy neighbor as thyself", and those who think "true Christians" are only those impressed by Justice Sunday. Either that first group of folks are "Christian" or they are not. And I have met some people "proud to be Christians" who don't know the Sermon on the Mount is in the New Testament. Is that OK as long as they are followers of someone like Robertson?

If to be "Christian" means to be a believer in Falwell, Robertson, Justice Sunday, OK to bomb abortion clinics and beat up gays, then lots of people who go to church every Sunday are not "Christian".

There are some churches which express doubt whether Catholics and Orthodox (Greek or Russian) are truly Christian or if that is reserved for evangelicals.

A United Church of Christ church held a funeral for 2 lesbians who were kidnapped, beaten and killed. Local elected officials attended the funeral to send a "not in our town" message. Either that UCC church is a "Christian" church or it isn't. Let's be clear on meanings.

I supported John B. Anderson for president in 1980. He was once Evangelical Layman of the Year. He's what I define as a Christian. He was challenged from the right in the Congressional primary in 1978, which had an influence on his decision to run for president. Among other things, he'd voted for the Fair Housing Bill in 1968 after Rev. Martin L. King was shot. Either Anderson is a "Christian" or he isn't.

Does "Christian" include everyone who believes in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ? Does it mean evangelical Protestants who aren't real sure they like Bill Frist anymore since Dr. Frist made that speech on stem cell research? Which is it?

Fundamentalists of any religious stripe tend to be and act insane. Religion has been the bane of humanity.

Excellent post. It inspired me to share some thoughts on my own weblog about this subject of the Christian Right Culture War: "Religious right on a crusade"

I included an interesting (and disturbing) email message from Ford Vox, founder of the faithless creed, Universism, after he had lunch with a director of Focus on the Family. He came away feeling very much like Mr. Barnhart does: the battle with Christian fundamentalism is coming (if not already here), and it won't be pretty.

Well, I guess there's not too much to worry about! I've been waiting all day, and not one "Dominionist" has been able to inform me what the fate of non-Christians will be in a "Christian" America! Or is that something they don't want to talk about?

And what of those who refuse to subscribe to the psychosis of religion? Who, instead, put their "faith" in the rationality of Man? Are we to be hoist on our own petard - guilty of creating a better auto-de-fe upon which to be crisped - one side by faith, the other by politics?

Is that the true end game of Democracy?

Feh!

Dear Mr. Barnhart:

My background is very similar to yours. I devoted nearly 20 years of my life to a quasi-fundamentalist church group and like you, I know this mentality intimately. Indeed, even though I no longer share their worldview, I still have people in my life that I deeply love who do. I agree with you and would add that the danger these people pose is knit up with their very "goodness," which is why their influence on our society is so perniciously dangerous. It was my desire to do right, to be good that was manipulated for all those 20 years. If I had been encouraged to hate others, to do evil, the message would not have been able to root itself so deeply in my person. And so the question we must face when dealing with such people is this: How can we ask them to be (what is in their eyes) less good? Less pure? Less willing to give their lives for what they see as holy? This is our challenge and until we embrace it for what it is, we will never succeed in wooing these lost souls--for that is what I believe they truly are--to the Christ they so ardently seek. Like you, I fell away from Christianity for many, many years. For me, the mere mention of the word 'Jesus' made me recoil with pain. But in time, I came recognized that I still had the same hunger for something that transended myself, just as I had when I was 19. And for me, I could still find my way of approach through Christianity because I remembered that Jesus said that the sum of the law is to do unto others as I would have them do unto me, and to love my neighbor as myself. I also came to see that none of this has anything to do with the covenant with my government as a citizen in a democracy. While my views about religous issues may animate my response to politics, my religious persuasions themselves have no place in the public square. The life I would live within my church and the covenants I bind myself to are that alone and must be distinguished from civil covenants. In keeping with this, I think the gay issue is a straw man--one can believe within the context of a church that homosexuality is wrong (not my view) and still be willing to defend a gay man or woman's full rights of citizenship before the Constitution. There is no reason, in a free society, that we cannot coexist with our different belief systems--indeed, we must do this. The Republicans have created an issue out of nothing for the purpose of dividing us. But I write this because I think in a sense, I am more hopeful than you. I agree with you that the danger these people pose is far more dangerous than most people think. But I see another path than direct conflict. I think the only way to really reach fundamentalist Christians is with the truth of their own scriptures. Just as the Republicans have distorted the Constitution to their ends, so right-wing "Christians" have distorted the scriptures and the gospel. I have long thought that there is a role for Christians to play in this fight of ours--we need to redeem the North American Church from its current apostacy by bringing them back to the one true faith. Sorry for rambling on for so long.

Marie, Chicago, Illinois

...I ought to have said that Christianity is for me, the form that this one true faith takes. For ME, but not necessarily for anyone else. I've come to think that what I celebrate through Christ is what I've come to see as our inner "default position" if you like for the good, the light, and I know that this takes a different form for everyone. For some, it even takes atheism. And I think this is a good thing.

Since the Bible has more calls for violence in it than it does for peace, what will Christian fundamentalists do as science and reason continue moving us forward with secular knowledge, e.g. science is finding that homosexuality is a natural part of the animal kingdom?

What we're witnessing from religious fundamentalists of all religions is their reaction, or backlash, to the progress the Enlightenment set forth. Reason and scientific discovery contradict many passages in most religious texts. Christian conservatives believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, so how do they reconcile their literal belief in the Bible with our nation's secular laws that prohibit murder? What is to prevent us from anticipating the emergence of Christianists who behave exactly like Islamists when the Bible offers up such passages as this:

If your brother, the sone of your father or of your mother, or your son or daughter, or the spouse whom you embrace, or your most intimate friend, tries to secretly seduce you, saying, "Let us go and serve other gods," unknown to you or your ancestors before you, gods of the peoples surrounding you, whether near you ar far away anywhere throughout the world, you must not consent, you must not listen to him; you must show him no pity, you must not spare him or conceal his guilt. No, you must kill him, your hand must strike the first blow in putting him to death and the hands of the rest of the people following. You must stone him to death, since he has tried to divert you from your God. (Deuteronomy 13:7-11)

So if some guy who's best friend has just become 'born-again' goes up to him and says, 'hey dude, you want to go to a yoga class with me? It's at this really cool Buddhist temple.' What's the true bible believer to do?

What if Jame's Dobson's Christianist agenda doesn't go through in the courts and in Congress? What if science continues to win? How will Dobson and his followers react?

The War may just start in Crawford. A Bush supporter just drove a truck over a bunch of white crosses symbolizing those killed in action in Iraq a few minutes ago. This does have the potential to get ugly.

"Perhaps I should just ignore these people..." There is a lot to be said for that. Indifference can be a very effective method. Instead of devoting a lot of time and effort to the nigh on impossible - speaking reason to faith - people would be more effective supporting something positive - like what the Democratic party is supposed to be but isn't. Instead of re-acting - act!

Good to see blatant religious bigotry is alive and well on the left.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/15/AR2005081501281.html is about a split among conservative political activists over Dr./Sen./Majority Leader Frist's views on stem cell research. Maybe it is time to remember that laws are supposed to be written by elected officials and not by activists/lobbyists.

I don't think it is "religious bigotry" to say those of different denominations have different theological views.

And is "the left" anyone who disagrees with Dobson, Robertson, Falwell, et al? Is the article posted by J. Hunter in a comment here "religious bigotry of the left" or just an admission that religious people can and do disagree politically and theologically?

Or is someone just trying to cause people to get angry?

Blow the Whistle!

>Posted by: REF | August 15, 2005 07:48 AM

What a silly tirade. Where is the evidence for his silly fears? In >the latest home-made bomb the Baptists have delivered to a Federal >Judge? There haven't been any. Is his evidence the masked suicide >bombers marching in our streets, holding their Scofield Study >Bibles high? There aren't any. Maybe it's the drive-by shootings, >where the zealots scream out, 'Jesus is Lord!'....well, there >haven't been any of those either.

Man....get a life....

...because Matthew Shepard doesn't have one anymore. HEADLINE: "REF Gets 10 minute penalty and a game misconduct"

Ferdinand Magellan knew what science was doing to "organized" religion when he said, "The Church says the earth is flat, but I know that it is round. For I have seen the shadow on the moon.And I have more faith in a shadow than in the Church."

REF:

Um... They may not be the now stereotypical suicide bombers, but there were cyanide bombers in texas...

Yes, the religious kooks are more dangerous than in the past. They are subconsciously embarrassed that their versions of reality were not validated by their versions of god in the 'aftermath' of Y2K. They are sorely disappointed that no one came down, not a seraphim, not even a bored angel, in fact, no one made their presence felt. No smiting angel smote anyone. Mayhaps they were too busy filing their nails or primping their wings, or they just couldn't find their implements of smitation. Whatever. But the fundies have taken note. No one seems - at least in the mighty firmament - to pay them any mind. So, Georgie makes a pretty good stand-in. He's considered a "godly man". And, of course, Tim La Haye and the rest of that team of wackos churning out the 'Left Behind' twaddle are very happy to respond to their desires, fill their needs for expecting to see those that are less "good" than they will be punished for the handicap of not seeing the world through their eyes. The parasitic pastors, and the GOP alike, are very happy to pretend to being the all-knowing, righteous prophets(profit$) & visionaries, prepared to remove all responsibility from their followers ("do this or else"). Much like the god for which they are ready substitute, they have a few foibles, which (the god's) can be easily encountered in a cursory reading of the goodbook. In fact, it fairly makes this god out to be a bit of a psycho, or at least, schizophrenic. One way to deal with the fundamentalist's smugness is to know the book which they hold sacred better than they do. Not easy, but also not as hard as it sounds. Remind them of the contradictions, the incest, the adulteries, the promoting of human slavery, the murders and the justifications thereof. Have a little fun: ask 'em what it was that David & Jonathon got up to (hint: they were young, they were handsome, and they had their clothes off!). Ask them a little Bible quiz question: "Which biblical figure threw his father off the throne [so much for honoring Ma & Pa], then, to prove he was now in charge, proceeded to 'get it on' with Dad's concubines [was that outright stealing, or just coveting?] - on the flat roof of the palace, in broad daylight?" Bonus question: "What happened to those lovely concubines when Dad regained the throne?" (Hint: it wasn't nice.)Which great prophet (recognized in the Talmud as such) was descended from these Royal sleezeballs? (Hint: well, he'd be of the Royal line, as was his father, and his mother, as well. [read the geneology]. In the same book, this person was described as "The King of the Jews".) By the way, by which version of the Ten Commandments should we comport our lives? There are 3.

The Religious Right wants to start a WAR? With us?

As some coward once said, "bring it on!"

You are a paraniod whacko. Your opinion ignores the fact that all legal and legislative momentum has been assaulting the Christian traditions of American culture. Any attempts for the voters to overthrow the tyranny of the secular judiciary is then hammered down by judge shopping until the lawyers find a Steven Reinhardt to stomp on our 1st Amendment freedoms.

In San Diego an atheist asshole and his attorney have been working for years to remove a cross put up at a war memorial in 1918. It offends this piece of shit. Of course the 9th Circuit marxists agreed with him. Is this bum fighting the Religious Right. Hell no, he's taking on the vast majority of American voters. There was an election this July to give the property with the cross to the Feds who will defend the cross effectively. Our liberal aetheist sued to require a 2/3rds majority to pass. The vote to save the cross was 77%. Fuck the bastard.

Just because you're gay and think you are saved doesn't mean you can shut up every American that thinks you are wrong. Personally I tend to agree with you about that but the Lord doesn't ask me for advice and I don't tell him what to do. Still, the old time righteous Christians, Muslims and Jews that think homosexuals are damned perverts have every right to say so as long as they don't take any actions to hasten you the final judgement. You ranting libs scare me a lot more than Bible thumpers. You paranoid leftists are the real danger to freedom of religion and speech.

Go ahead, Stoke your resentment for us Christians. I'll wish you well in spite of it. After all it was Jesus who said returning love for your enemies hatred "will pour coals of fire on their head". We don't need to harm you. You're killing yourself with fear and bitterness.

Rich.

PS: I'm moving to Deschutes county in a few years, God willing. Two of my right wing, Christian friends and their families have moved this year to southern Oregon. We'll make it a red state again someday soon.

Dear Dick-

at first i thought you said 'stroke' and not 'stoke'. i let out a hearty 'tehe'. i really can't counter your well thought out arguments, but i have 2 questions:

1. is final judgment anything like final jeopardy? cuz if it is, i will dominate ala ken jennings: 'what is the rapture, beeotches!'.

2. what exactly are 'coals of fire'? if they are coals they are just really hot and if there is fire, then that would make them fireballs. (i said balls ('tehe' x2))

please, don't leave me hanging, Dick.

Dear Dick,

at first i thought you said 'stroke' and not 'stoke'. i let out a hearty 'tehe'. i really can't counter your well thought out arguments, but i have 2 questions:

1. is final judgment anything like final jeopardy? cuz if it is, i will dominate ala ken jennings: 'what is the rapture, beeotches!'.

2. what exactly are 'coals of fire'? if they are coals they are just really hot and if there is fire, then that would make them fireballs. (i said balls ('tehe' x2))

please, don't leave me hanging, Dick.

Rich:

"...atheist asshole"? "...this piece of shit"? I can't imagine the cognitive dissonance you must have to endure when you try to square your verbal contempt with Jesus' admonition that says, "But I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca [a curse word], shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire" Matthew 5:22

Who is this Jesus you claim to serve? I do not recognize the Jesus I serve in you. Where, in scripture, do you find your sentiments reflected? Where do you find justification for what you have written to someone you most likely don't even know? And as for "fear and bitterness," I must tell you that the most difficult challenge Jesus has laid on me is to obey the heart of the law, which is to love my neighbor as myself. This takes all my courage and I fail so often. And hope leaves me little time for bitterness. If you had been honest, you would have noted that an accurate reading of the verse you cited makes it clear that the "coals of fire" you speak about bringing down on the heads of others are meant as metaphors for the idea that it is our love, and not our hate, that will ignite the fire of conscience in those we encounter.

But instead, you seem to want to intentionally distort the core message of the very Christ you so desperately appear to long for. And as a result, "... the name of God because of you is evil spoken of among the nations, according as it hath been written.” Romans 2:24

I don't mean to turn this thread into a theological debate, but instead want to illuminate something deeper. In a way I agree with Buxtehude who suggests--rightly, I believe--that Rich's "Christian" message is seductive precisely because it appeals to something base in us. Hey, if I found a church where I could get kudos for thinking that I am superior to you, and that the only morality I need to worry about is the kind that demands that you ought no do something while requiring very little from me (particularly in the wallet), then why wouldn't I want to get on that train? It's lazy and dishonest and self-serving. And to our point here, dangerous to democracy.

But for me, Jesus' teachings are not like this. To me, he was the ultimate radical bleeding heart liberal who brought the message of a radical love that actually costs something--much more than many folks who call themselves Christians appear to be willing to give.

Alas, if only the North American Church would actually act like the Church.

Marie

<h1></h1>

So Congressmen Bloomer and Walled-In have repaired to the Mountain. Perhaps the summary should be in testimony to the labyrinth-walker in popular fashion, (finding relaxed revelation in sisyphean sweat), by some large context where Mt. Hood's 40-mile loop trail is a labyrinth of switchbacks, crestings, and snowmelt sinks.

I suppose there may be news that there are glaciermelt sinks now that weren't on trail maps before The Warming.

But together let's expect that the promotion angle, the 'hook' in their mountain gambol is 'conflict-framed,' maybe headlined as: "Divided in Congress, United in Wilderness," or something. Can't you feel the tension of contradiction churning between every line?

So let's leapfrog ahead of the Mt. Hood '06 Thesis spin. Let's anticipate the coming spin and pre-spin our own thinking against it -- build ourselves some ready antibodies, get innoculated. With parody.

Let's say Walled-In and Bloomer come down from the mountain with two chisled stone slates, a left tablet and a right tablet. Each tablet has 5 commandments.

On the left: ............... On the right: - - - - - - - - - - ............. - - - - - - - - - - - - Thou shalt Integrate ... Thou shalt Differentiate. Accommodate .......... Manipulate Fate ......................... Hate Respect family ........... Prospect merit Add .......................... Subtract Conjoin ..................... Enjoin Jump ....................... How high?

Okay, 5 or more commandments. In any case, the scene shows an allegory for Bipartisanship. Maybe they can split the Bill of 10 Rights instead of the 10 Commandments, between D's and R's.

May "be" whatever you want. We're invited to think our own lists -- this is parody pre-spin, remember?

With one more stricture: Opposite sides enforce the other. This regulation is like the pseudo-Solomonic settlement of two kids with one apple: one cuts it and the other gets first pick.

On the tablets, whichever law, or commandment, or constituted Right, is chisled on one side, partisan personnel of the other side get to enforce it. Whatever 'enforce' means. Preserve. Ensure. Uphold. Legislate. If the right wants 'individual rights,' the left gets to set them. If the left wants 'public service,' the right gets to audit the books. And so forth.

If we all take out our crayons now and color between those lines, we can soon have a thread of vibrant visions. Seeing contributions, perhaps, to current topics, Published on Tuesday, August 16, 2005 by The Nation, Here's the PLAN, by John Nichols, where we are asked "to provide reform-minded legislators with strategic and research support" ... "in a process that will 'remould, through experimentation, our economic practices and institutions to meet changing social and economic needs.' ( - Louis Brandeis)" Our own BlueOregon research experiment results, supplying Sirota.

What could be on the congressional tablets if Bloomer and Walled-In, (euphemisms for Democrat and Republican), come down from the mountain engrossed in a two-sided graven image of bipartisanship? Anyone? .... Anyone?

<h1></h1>

Geeeez Louise! I just Bloomer and Walled-In to figure out things like getting the garbage picked up in my neighborhood, making sure the kid down the block can read, and that the air gets cleaner so my asthma won't bother me so much. And I think therein lies a huge problem for us. We still have not resolved some very fundamental questions regarding what we see as the proper role of government in this country, and what we expect it to do or be in our lives. You know, in the original Hebrew, each of the Ten Commandments consisted of only a few words and read something like, do this and don't do that. They established broad parameters within which a specific group of people at a very particular point in time and place in history could live together without destroying themselves within the context of a shared belief system. But hello… the United States is NOT ancient Israel. This is NOT the Ancient Near East. Like the ancient Israelites, we are made up of many ethnic groups and represent many nationalities, but the framers of the Constitution came up with a different solution to the problem of how to bind us together as one people. Unlike the Israelites, they lived on this side of the Thirty Years War and understood why the Peace of Westphalia remained relevant to their enterprise. In their wisdom, they chose to bind themselves to one another NOT through a common belief system, but instead through a secular social contract, articulated through the Constitution, and codified in law. While I might think it well right and good for men and women in government to share with me an overall moral framework, this is very different from demanding that they share my religious convictions. Those convictions may give them their moral framework, but their convictions are not, in the end, what will affect my ability to live freely and equitably as a citizen in a democracy. I think a lot of the conflation of Church and State in the last 30 years has been due to the Straussians’ deliberate meddling with our form of government. They sincerely believe that democracy, true democracy, is a dangerous form of government. Further, they believe that we, the undifferentiated “masses” as they like to think of us, are essentially hedonistic and as a result, can only be brought together through some shared quasi-religious experience coupled with an authoritarian state. These, I think, are the powerful ideas that are constantly lurking around the edges of our current religious strife. But do we really believe this? Is this really how we want to live together? I think this is a conversation that we must get out in the open. We must ask ourselves what we believe government is, what democracy is and what our answers will mean to how we go forward together. But such a conversation will take leadership on the part of someone, and I don’t know whom that will be. All I know is that I don’t remember voting for theocracy in 2000 or 2004. I don’t remember that proposition being on the ticket in Illinois. And again, that's precisely the problem. We weren't given a chance to agree or disagree with the direction these theocrats are taking us. As for me, I just want my government to provide the basic structures that allow me to choose my own life, and by extension, my own belief system. I don’t want them to hand a belief system to me on a set of tablets, clay or otherwise.

For those interested I would refer you to a book about the results of just such an ideology that is currently sweeping the country. Remember that this is a work of historical fiction but the possibilities are still frightening. "The 15% Solution: A Political History of American Fascism, 2001-2022" by Jonathan Westminster, Ph.D. This name is pseudonymous.

<h1></h1>

Marie, investigations say you are right about "Straussians' deliberate meddling," but haven't found evidence for anything "they believe that we (are)" -- seeming to have no thought of us "undifferentiated 'masses'" at all.

Here are those investigations: "EXPOSÉ: THE “CHRISTIAN” MAFIA," Where Those Who Now Run the U.S. Government Came From and Where They Are Taking Us, By Wayne Madsen.

Part I -- After several months of in-depth research and, at first, seemingly unrelated conversations with former high-level intelligence officials, lawyers, politicians, religious figures, other investigative journalists, and researchers, I can now report on a criminal conspiracy so vast and monstrous it defies imagination. Using “Christian” groups as tax-exempt and cleverly camouflaged covers, wealthy right-wing businessmen and “clergy” have now assumed firm control over the biggest prize of all – the government of the United States of America. First, some housekeeping is in order. My use of the term “Christian” is merely to clearly identify the criminal conspirators who have chosen to misuse their self-avowed devotion to Jesus Christ to advance a very un-Christian agenda. The term “Christian Mafia” is what several Washington politicians have termed the major conspirators and it is not intended to debase Christians or infer that they are criminals . I will also use the term Nazi – not for shock value – but to properly tag the political affiliations of the early founders of the so-called “Christian” power cult called the Fellowship. The most important element of this story is that a destructive religious movement has now achieved almost total control over the machinery of government of the United States – its executive, its legislature, several state governments, and soon, the federal judiciary, including the U.S. Supreme Court.

The United States has experienced religious and cult hucksters throughout its history, ...

[Emphasis added.]

<h1></h1>

I gone through this blog for the last hour or so after going through numerous articles about Cindy Sheehan. I think what I'm seeing here is Christian vs any other kind of belief. Progressive vs conservative. Religious vs non-religious. For this of you who continue to assert that this is a "Christian" nation, let's please take note of the fact that nowhere in the Constitution or the Declaration is God mentioned. That was not because the Founders didn't believe in God. It was because they didn't want to press their personal beliefs on whoever else may live in this country. They did look ahead (except for the 2nd amendment). They had lived under a monarchy and knew that they had to make it as hard as possible for any kind of state religion to take hold. Although there is no phrase in the Constitution about any kind of "wall" between any church and/or religion and state, their meaning was very obvious. We need to get this dialogue about religion out of political discourse. It shouldn't be there and it certainly was not intended by the Founding Fathers to be there. And it serves no purpose. Those who are fundamentalists are going to try to impose their beliefs on the rest of us. And the rest of us are going to fight back. I grew up in the 50s and 60s. Religion and politics weren't discussed in polite company. Both were private. You go to the church (or not) that you believe in and you go into the voting booth and vote who you believe (until 2000). The fact of the matter is these are two very, very personal issues that every single person in these United States should never have to discuss or defend. I say we get a grip. Throw these fundamentalists no-nothings out of office and go back to what this country was supposed to be.

Have a good day Ellen

I think this is the crux of the matter. I think what I'm seeing here is Christian vs any other kind of belief. Progressive vs conservative. Religious vs non-religious

There are people who go to church and are active on progressive causes. It probably annoyed the "Defense of Marriage" people no end that the folks who came to our house (and many others, I'm sure) campaigning AGAINST Measure 36 were glad to talk about what church they belonged to.

I am really tired of hearing that those people who attend church regularly and believe in God are not "Christian" if their views are closer to Ecumenical Ministries than to Justice Sunday, Robertson, Falwell, et. al. Anyone who wants to call this paragraph heresy or anti-religious can do so to their heart's content. But they shouldn't try to get votes from anyone who didn't vote for Bush AND Measure 36.

I have been to churches where they had political presentations (wife of a candidate, about a minister's sabattical to Habitat for Humanity, etc) after the service. I have also seen a church lobby where there were pamphlets from community groups incl. Planned Parenthood. Not to mention churches involved in Stand for Children, or the Nuclear Freeze of the 1980s. To say such church people are not "religious" if they don't buy the whole Religous Right party line is ridiculous.

Ellen,

Go to your purse, take out your wallet, pull out a one dollar bill, and read it.

The Religious Right is a typical "pharisee" faith movement, in that it is moralistic and self-righteously convinced of it's own goodness. Yet this deludes this movement to be not only blind to their own own huge moral shortcomings, but to have an over-inflated sense of their power, even within the Republican Party.

The real power within both major political parties is the power of corporate contributions, PACs, 527s and lobby efforts. And even the nomination of John Roberts was far more due to his corporate lobby legal work on behalf of the coal industry to gut clean air and antistrip mining laws, than for any real social conservative views.

This last Sunday, the Religious Right held Justice Sunday II, which featured convicted felon Chuck Colson, Tony Perkins(not the actor from "Psycho") of the Family Research Council, Tom Delay and others. Interestingly, James Dobson of Focus Familiy only addressed the organization via videotape, as the event he helped to organize was important enough to interupt his vacation in France.

In typical classical brainwashing tactics, the event over and over tried to reinforce the view that Christian's are endangered and must change the court to protect themselves. This tends to isolate a group who then reforces paranoid politics and thinking and creates a "seige mentality". Yet at no time during the event was the fact that all but 2 of the nine justices are Republicans and appointed by Republican Presidents. The fact is even among Republicans, the paranoid "seige" politics of the Religious Right are rejected. The Supreme Court reflects this truth.

Roberts nomination is being promoted by a 527, Progress For America, which is heavily bankrolled by contributions from the heir to Wal-Mart and others. Wal-Mart recently won a huge Supreme Court victory when the court decided to allow local governments to seize property so new Wal-Mart mega-stores and other projects could be built by communities. Wal-Mart and other big corporate interests have huge lobby and political contribution efforts to influence politics. Roberts is this type of "conservative", a "corporate conservative". By comparison some like James Dobson have an inflated sense of self-importance just like the classic Biblical pharisee has. Yet the average politician would be lucky to see even a $10 contribution from Dobson. When corporations give millions to parties and polticians, and the James Dobson's give next to nothing, it is easy to see where the real power in Washington is.

The Christian Right is made to feel important in the Republican Party only for their votes. But the corporate powers who run and manipulate this party actually have nothing but distain for figures of the Religious Right who are seen as dupes who help them on election day, but otherwise are of little value to their advancement of corporate goals.

PROGRESSIVE VALUES

As a recovering Southen Baptist, I can assure you, the author is correct: we have much to fear from the evangelofascists, for theirs is an Orwellian sort of Christianity, where their hate masquerades as love, and their bigotry is wrapped in biblical nostrums.

The Christian Identity Movement, and its fellow-travellers, the Dominionists (Dobson, Robertson, Falwell, et al. ad nauseam).

They will kill to secure their ends. They already have. Eric Rudolph was one of theirs. Timothy McVeigh had fundamentalist connections. These are the beloved martyrs of the evangelical movement.

Here's how simple it is: we, the normal people are caught in a crossfire between rival gangs of fundamentalist thugs: Bush on one side and Osama on the other. It's a deadly debate over "tastes Great" and "less-filling" with people who don't care either way as the victims.

The American Evangelofascist movement is not to be ignored. And we laugh at them and dismiss them at our peril.

We must oppose them, constantly and without ceasing. Our only weapons are logic and common sense. That makes for a pretty tall order when you're dealing with people who think that five thousand years ago a gossipy anaconda got a naked lady in big, BIG trouble and that's why people have to die. Sheesh!

Ellen:

I actually share most of your positions, and I hope it is significant to you that I say this from the perspective of a Christian. The problem, though, is that although you and I may agree that religion ought not to be part of our shared civic debate, the Christo-fascists (as Mark Crispin Miller calls them) don’t agree with us. Indeed, they wear their divisiveness and unwillingness to dialogue or compromise with us as a badge of honor. So what are we going to do about it? We can say all we want that “[we] need to get this dialogue about religion out of political discourse,” and that “[it] shouldn't be there and it certainly was not intended by the Founding Fathers to be there,” and I agree with you. But it doesn’t matter because they keep insisting on putting it there. Just telling them to shut up hasn’t worked. Indeed, their perception that they have been told to shut up for decades is precisely the fuel that continues to inflame their movement. In a way, I think those of us who defend the idea of a secular, liberal democracy have refused to really address their assertions directly and so have allowed those assertions to morph into irrational convictions. I think it is their very stridency and belligerence that make them seem so dangerous to me. They seem to want to draw us into some sort of demented holy war. So again, my question is, what are we going to do about it? At this point, it doesn’t matter how ridiculous we believe their arguments to be because they will continue to make them at the top of their lungs. What I was trying to suggest is that instead of just telling them to shut up again, this time we might consider fighting back with better, more forceful arguments--ones grounded in an appeal to reason, history and law. And we need to start making these arguments on our terms, not theirs. I was also trying to suggest that those of us who view ourselves as Christians have a distinct role to play in this too by confronting their core belief systems within the context of the Church and scripture. In short, I would hope we could begin to coordinate a vibrant battle of ideas waged on many, simultaneous fronts. I think this is beginning to happen slowly. I just hope it's not too little, too late so that we can avert whatever they are trying to lure us into.

Marie

P.S. Tenskwatana, thanks for the link to that great Madsen article. Woah!

Simply put...THE ROMANS DIND'T HAVE ENOUGH LIONS!

The hypocracy of most prominent "Christians" and those I have met in my long life is so astonishing. Religion, not spirituality, is a haven for the ignorant and the weak which makes it a great breeding / recruiting ground for those in power to exploit to their own personal ends (greed and more power). (A fact borne out the last election's demographic data). The newspapers are rife with evidence, every day.

I can tell you that at every opportunity I make it a point to ascertain whether a person with whom I must interact is either a "christian" or a Republican. If they are either or both I will not further engage them and especially will make sure that they receive no type of gain, monetary or otherwise from any interaction with me. I will not support any advancement of them in any way becuase their only purpose is to exclude and damn me and all those who do not dogmatically follow their beliefs.

An excellent example would be their rabid attacks on those seeking recognition for their committed relationships based in love and respect - marriage - gay marriage. All the effort they expend rallying against it saying it will undermine society. 65%+ of the straight marriages end in divorce. What energy do they expend to correct this? Clearly, they are not good at it so who are they to pass judgement or lecture on the virtues of it. Just plain idiots and I have no problem telling each and every one I meet that they are just that.

My tolerance is gone and anger has taken over.

An eye for an eye I believe is the quote!

THE ROMANS DIND'T HAVE ENOUGH LIONS! is my battle cry. Make it yours. BOYCOTT any business or organization affliated with these two groups. Money is the only thing that matters to them and when they start to feel the pinch their true colors (green) will show through. GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

Posted by: Diesel | August 14, 2005 10:07 PM

Sorry. Can't agree with you there. In my humble opinion, I think you're being a little melodramatic. I think the thing you are forgetting is that those people that tend to be "uber-religious" (for lack of a better phrase) are also staunch supporters of the Constitution of the United States.

The only way you will be "forced to kneel before their self-created idol" is if radical Islam is allowed to takeover the Western world.

<hr/>

Yeah, Diesel, and what if you're wrong? An excerpt from "The Librarian":

"Tempted by power and ego and greed, he had gone over to the dark side.His goodness, actually, had been his ultimate weakness. He had been so certain of himself that he had become self-righteous. The self-righteous believe that all that they themselves do must be right, for they are Good, and that which issues from the Good must also be good. Once that happens, the self-righteous man has blinded himself and all sorts of sins can walk right in -- envy, greed, anger, and pride-- and, once in, they can take possession of the man as they now possessed Jack, and they had led him to believe that he was above the law, that he could subvert a nation, that he could kill people, and that, because he was among the Good, those acts must be good."

My Barnhart's passionate sermon reads like a textbook case of someone in serious denial and unable to accept their own latent pent-up homosexuality. Mr. Barnhart says he's straight but everything about his rant says GAY in flaming neon. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Joe -

I suppose it wouldn't bother you to hear someone say Hitler didn't have enough ovens, or the Abu Grahib don't have enough light sticks, or the Janjaweeb don't have enough machetes. The Romans didn't have enough lions? It's so repulsive it doesn't even work as a joke, which I sincerely hope it was.

I am neither a new or an old friend of Mr. Barnhart. Nor was my statement meant as any type of insult. I did not imply that there was anything wrong with being gay, only that the way Mr. Barnhart's sermon was worded led me to think he may be a man "with issues" as they say. I believe that is the politically correct term. If Mr. Barnhart is so accepting and supportive of the homosexual lifestyle as he says, then why automatically assume that my comment was something to be viewed as a negative? Funny how the guilty often complain loudest. Or so they say. Sincerely, Homer S. Thompson Eugene, OR

Well Becky, until all those Christians who say it is only the few far right fundamentalists that give them all a bad name stand up publicly and decree those that hold up signs and hit the 700 Club airways saying "God hates fags they should die" or "Gays are responsible for divorce and abortion (Pat Robertson)", or "Kill all gays", or "Jesus Hates fags" this type of sentiment will continue to grow and fester. Someone else posted that the Christians she knows devote their time to philanthropy and good works. True, but by their silence on issues of hate and violence (killing abortion clinic docotrs in the name of Jesus) they advocate such actions. Silence equals death and those who remain so are guilty by complicity. The destruction of human life and dignity that has been pertuated over hundreds of years in the name of Jesus (missionaries to the Americas committing genocide of the native peoples, the Inquisition, the Crusades, to name just three) shows the true color of the Christian agenda. So easy for you to feel offended while everyday I, like thousands of others across this country, worry for my personal safety (hate crimes against gays and lesbians in Florida and Texas has risen 45% in the last year) because of "god fearing" Christians is intolerable. I have tried to reason with the ignorance, tolerance with the biligerance, to no avail. Hmmm. All the facists you mention seem to have a very similar agenda to that of the Republican party and the conservative Christians attempting to impose their myopic view of the world onto an entire nation. I am tired of standing by and allowing the results of "intelligent design" wreck havoc with my life and my loved ones. I'll stick with Darwin's "survival of the fittest" and espouse that we begin to fight back and fight back hard. You have brought this hatred upon yourselves, "reap what you sow" I think is the phrase. Recognize the feelings you have reading "The Romans didn't have enough lions" are just momentary in blogville not ones you have to face and live with day in and day out like most gay people, black people, non-christian people in this country. Have empathy - surely isn't that at the heart of Jesus beliefs. That and compassion? I have no sympathy for your hurt feelings and stand by my war cry and I will rally as much support as possible to fight back. I am all out of tolerance, compassion and sympathy. And so are more and more Americans. Your days of tyranny are numbered. You should be afraid just as we are.

Joe -

I'm not a Christian, so let's get that out of the way. I also happen to be very sympathetic to your concerns and agree that we have a serious problem developing with the religious right extremists. But I get very nervous when ANYONE starts talking about mass murder (e.g. the merits of feeding Christians to lions) based on religious beliefs. It's very un-American. I would expect a lot more from the participants on this forum and frankly am shocked that nobody else here has jumped up to condemn your comments.

A lot of left-leaning tolerant Christians have spoken out in this forum, in case you haven't read their posts, and there is a growing movement of tolerant, loving Christians who, like you, have had enough of the extreme fundamentalist crazies, haters and manipulators and are speaking out against them and what they are doing to this country. And I distinctly recall many Christian leaders coming forward to renounce the attacks on abortion clinics and abortion doctors, the attacks on homosexuals, Tim McVeigh, and other such extremist activity.

I think you ought to examine your own extremist anti-Christian bias. Is it fair to blame an entire segment of society for the insanity of a few? If you really believe that, you're no different than the people who, in their hysteria, are seriously saying we should kill all "ragheads" because of terrorism. They use the same excuse you do - the Islamic community hasn't stood up to protest terrorism loudly enough, and a literal reading of their holy book, much like the Bible, sounds like a call to war.

You know, with more people reasoning these things through as you have, we really could end up with a bloody holy war in this country. I sincerely hope the reasonable and caring many can overcome the hatred of the insane few.

Becky,

Bingo. You got it! That's exactly the point. We are headed towards a civil war based on religion. In fact, name 5 wars from the past 4 centuries that were not rooted in religious differences. Since the majority of this country is poorly educated (look at the statistics compared to other nations, and, who voted in the last election and their educational c.v.'s) it is VERY easy for them to arrive at the conclsuions and decision highlighted in the earlier posts.

Sorry, tho - your rationalization that there are good Christians who oppose the oppression and violence falls short. The few don't excuse the many and currently the many are winning. The tangible evidence of the oppressed is far more visible, palpable, than that of the few "good". Until their voices are raised louder so that I can hear them and so that their neighbors can hear them, and so that their goverment can hear them, I will continue to rattle the cage with somewhat inflamatory rhetoric. It seems to work for them. Logic, good sense, critical thinking, compassion, empathy, kindness and love don't work on their hardened, greedy, hypocritcal hearts and minds. I at least am able to point to direct tangible evidence. You, Becky, well meaning and politically coprrect as you are, have yet to do so.

I do appreciate you jumping in tho. At least one person is paying attention and you get points for that.

Dear Mr. Barnhart,

My name is Homer S. Thompson. Yeah, I know it's similar to the late author Hunter S. Thompson - but I'm not him. He's dead. And no, the S. does NOT stand for "Simpson" either, something else I get hit with a lot too.

You seem somewhat delusional in your replies to me. Why am I not surprized by this?

However, regarding the topic at hand, while I do understand your opinion and fear of the "Religios Right", which is not without substance, based on my own assessment of our current state of affairs I would respectfully suggest that your paranoia, fear and loathing would be much better aimed at Walmart. Walmart is the real enemy of all that is good and holy. They are the Borg, Satan and The Anti-Christ all rolled into one. And they are currently controlling ever increasing amounts of the world's power structure and getting stronger by the moment.

Don't fear a bunch of chemically-imbalanced "Jesus Freaks", fear Walmart! And be afraid! ...be VERY afraid indeed!!!!!

Sincerely,

Homer S. Thompson bassist for Sunset Lou & the Hokum Scorchers Jug Band Eugene, OR

Joe,

While I appreciate Becky's defense and would hope that you would be willing to think again on what she has written, as a Christian, it shames me to say that I agree with much of what you say. I too believe that at some level, the silence of the Christian left has facilitated the ascendance of the Christian right. Indeed, this is the central point I’ve tried to make in my above posts. It’s not my place to respond to you point by point--I haven’t earned the right. But I did want to say this: if the dreaded battle we’ve been alluding to on this thread actually comes one day, I want you to stop a moment and turn around. You might be surprised by who’s got your back.

With respect, Marie

What a bunch of bigots you all are. You all decry "Christians" for their beliefs about homosexuals etc. and then you talk about disenfranchising Christians.

Simply insert the word Jew or Black for Christian and you will realize what a bunch of hypocrytical bigots you all are.

This is why liberals fail. We all see through your hypocrisy. I know most of you won't get this, because you have drank the Kool Aid and refuse to accept that your dogma is as radical as any. Quit calling people names and go out and come up with ideas that aren't crazy. Why not do that?

Oh wait, no you won't. You are all far too educated and enlightened. I must not understand what you are all syaing because I am not as enlightened as you.

Thank god.

What a wonderful and intelligent post by WHAT regarded Christian-bashing and the "Enlightend Left".

You wanna see REAL Bigotry, Discrimination, Hatred, Disenfranchisement and outright Prejudice???
Just ask a few peace-loving liberal Leftist fanatics how they feel about guns, pork or Confederate flags?

Funny how they're all about equality, acceptance, tolerance and anti-discrimination until a buncha rebel flag waving pickup truck driving rednecks, crackers and peckerwood hillbillies are concerned?

Funny how that goes.

Deo Vindice,

Homer S. Thompson

"I hate to advocate barbecue, gun-ownership and voting, but they've always worked for me." - Homer S. Thompson

Only the ones who are not locked into "uber" (good term) Christianity will be able to truly see the truth in Mr. Barnhart's statement. First, Jesus was NOT Christian, that is a man made organization and there is nothing in the Bible about "making that organization", which would lead me to believe that some of the Bible was changed to reflect what men wanted it to reflect. Second, He was Jewish, and even He did not believe in some of the practices of "religion". Third, and most important, it is virtually impossible to translate Hebrew into English. There is NO WAY for us to know if the Bible actually says what we read as English. The English translations, are just that, translations "as best they can" from the Hebrew. And the King James version is the MOST ADULTERATED VERSION, and the most popular. When our fore fathers came to this country to avoid religious and taxation persecution, they brought with them the Geneva Bible, most widely used version at that time. Point in fact, Romans 13 said (paraphrased for brevity) 'all authority comes from God, you must obey authority'. The King James Version is whacked...it says, (paraphrased for brevity)'all authority comes from God, GOVERNMENT gets its authority from God, you must obey authority'....Even a moron can see what the people who changed THAT, HAD IN MIND....and there are cases of that throughout the King James version. The King James version should be tossed as the junk it is. Seperation of Church and State?? I don't think so, just that one verse shows that they are in each others pockets, and have manipulated the truth to control people.

Hold your hand out, sideways, fingers spread, so your little finger is on top and thumb on the bottom and look at this fact: When our country was founded, One Nation UNDER GOD (little finger on top), the People came directly UNDER GOD, the Constitution (middle finger and boy are we getting the middle finger), was created to BUFFER We the People from the "government" and from the people who would work for the government, (the thumb).....NOW.....see the Nation as it is today...FLIP YOUR HAND OVER SO THE THUMB IS ON TOP...and the workers for the government, from the President on down, are ON TOP, not GOD, government that these people have corrupted rules and the constitution is barely worth the paper it was written on, which leaves the People in the screwed position we are in.....and I am not so sure that the "thumb"...now God...is completely OUT of any of this equation. Mr. Barnhart is right, there is a war coming, and it is because we have allowed this to happen. We were the chosen ones, and we placed government, and religion, and medicine and and and....everything before God. We pretty much deserve what's coming. Thank you Mr. Barnhart, for your words and a way to respond to you and to the ones that have posted here...Blessed be...Rita

Whoops, in my "hand" analogy, at the end, I meant to say the "little finger" representing God, at the bottom, after you flip your hand over, not "thumb" as I wrote..my bad...sorry...fact remains that I don't think God is even on the hand at all any more. God is being replaced with fanatical beliefs that have way more to do with greed than with God, and a lot of this IS being crammed down our throats and forced upon us and it is being done using government and "laws".

The only thing I can hope and pray is that God has not turned a blind eye to those of us who see this, and in our own ways, fight it every day. Blessings..Rita

Dear Rita,

About the only things I can agree with in your letter are the facts that the Bible was indeed highly-edited by men with their own agendas and that "We pretty much deserve what's coming."

But as for Americans being the "Chosen Ones", ...chosen for what? To come over here and kill a bunch of indians and steal their land away from them at the end of a gun? I have a hard time buying that as God's Plan for The Chosen Ones. Sorry.

In my own personal experience with Christians, about the only ones I really truly trust are the Gideons. No Gideon has ever knocked on my door at 8:30am in the morning. No Gideon has ever asked me for money. I've never seen a single news story ever anywhere about any Gideons being involved in any type of illegal or immoral activities. And they leave Bibles free of charge in every motel and hotel room in the world just so if you get bored there's always something to read. Neither Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Swaggart, The Pope or Pat Robertson can say that. Trust me, if there are any real true "Servants of God" left these days, they are the Gideons!

As for the the spiritual sign language thing, as far as I can see, make a fist, then raise the middle finger and that's about the only message I seem to be getting from either organized religion or the government of late. And my reply is, "Right back atcha!"

But as crazy, irrational and perhaps even dangerous as the "born again" fanatical Christian Right may be, they still don't scare me as much as Walmart does. Trust me, if there's a Satan, he's running Walmart and the only thing worse than the hell to come that they have planned for us all, is when all the American factories have closed and we all have to get jobs at Walmart. You want to see what the true bowels of Hell look like? Walk into a Walmart store and look into the eyes of it's workers.

You want to talk about "real" Christians. Some one here mentioned something earlier about the Romans not having enough lions. I think a serious lesson can be learned from those first early Christians that walked happily into the jaws of their demise because they did not fear death and were glad to get to Heaven as fast as possible to be with their maker. I have to wonder just how many of those currently warming most suburban church pews have that kind of faith?

Not many I'll wager, ...except for maybe the Gideons, the only true servants of God left. And I'll bet you won't see any Gideons shopping at Walmart either.

Mahalo,

Homer

"I hate to advocate Barbecue, Gun Ownership or The Gideons, but they've always worked for me." - Homer S. Thompson

The book -The Great Controversy- by E. G. White, speaks in much the same way of the movement to control freedom of conscience under the banner of Christianity. The book's premise is that there is a visible battle that is coming and is indeed now here that is turning on some of the very issues raised in this article. It is right in line with the prophetic messages of Revelation 12-14. Fascinating and edifying reading for anyone who is interested.

frank