Thinking Outside The Box: Do We Dare Question NeoConservatives and Christofascists?

Or Reconstructionists? Or Televangelists? Or Preachers? Or...POLITICIANS?

"Everything's relative" is the phrase most people use to get out of an argument. However, that phrase might get you INTO a bigger argument. Most "relativists" are liberal and want to be able to see things through a different perspective. It doesn't make a difference if the conclusion is the same, they just want to have the freedom to "see" differently. They need to question and analyze. They also need to see the most inclusive picture: all possibilities, positions, status, renderings. They feel comfortable in making their decisions after having fully investigated something - and asked all the questions they can. Questions (sometimes along with reasonable answers) make a thing real. A lack of questions makes something un-real.

Viewing reality is sometimes like looking at an M.C. Escher painting: there are reasonable, concrete things going in different directions. At first, it may be puzzling, but isn't it wonderful to know that we can see different things in one painting?



Christofascists of the world want not only to change the way we see things, but how we should (or, more importantly, IF we should) think about them. Yes, it's the old Faith vs. Reason conflict, but neoconservatives say that NOT thinking is good for the soul. As one evangelical said in reviewing the Creation Museum in Kentucky: "The Creation Museum goes far beyond mere science. It doesn’t elevate man’s intellect by using science to “prove” Scripture. Instead, God’s Word is placed first and human reason is last. " (emphasis my own). At the entrance of the museum there is a command:

Don't Think - Believe!

Telling us WHAT to think is terrible enough - telling us NOT to think is unconscionable.

(To see what the Creation Museum is doing to keep 'em coming, just look at their new MUSICAL!)

Of course, there's spin. Is it free of conservative restraints? Not exactly. It's still telling you what to think. That even includes a kind of future historical revisionism , (I know that sounds silly and slightly oxymoronic, but YOU coin a phrase for the next paragraph.) Let's look at how Secretary of State Condaleeza Rice sees the preemptive strike on Iraq in an article she penned:

(From the Washington Independent)

Rice’s discussion of Iraq comes late in the article. She defends the invasion, and stretches the truth to do so. "The Iraq Survey Group showed [that] Saddam was ready and willing to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction programs as soon as international pressure had dissipated," Rice writes. In fact, the Iraq Survey Group also showed that Iraq’s WMD programs were in a pitiful state of disrepair, meaning that Rice is neglecting the actual question of what Saddam Hussein could have done with the chimerical one of what he wanted to do. Ultimately, Rice punts on the Iraq war: "This story is still being written, and will be for many years to come." (Interestingly, the word "Afghanistan" appears only three times.)

In other words, George is still hunting for a legacy and he's hoping that "history" won't judge him so harshly. For what he's done to the American image, that's quite a dream!