To The New Puritans: Religious Freedom's Tough, Isn't It?

At Least, for the "Christian Only" Crowd! 

Did the landing of the Mayflower signal the first country to have true religious freedom? Were the Pilgrims establishing a society based on the freedom to worship (or not to worship) as one sees fit?

Of course not. Puritans were simply fleeing Anglican rule. If there would have been a Puritan-tolerant country that was more civilized while offering free land, you can bet your last dollar that they would have settled in it instead of North America. The Puritan arrival was simply the result of intolerance fleeing intolerance. How long did they put up with Native American religions? Long enough to survive through the first winters on the benevolence of the Indians. It's a wonder the Indians were compassionate at all - the smell of hypocrisy can be quite a strong deterrent, even to people as empathetic as the Massachusett tribe). But eventually, the Puritan Ethic reared its head and the heathens were sorry that the Mayflower ever made it across the pond:

The first Native American translation [of the Bible], completed in 1663, was made into the language of the Massachusett tribe, which the Puritan colonists then promptly wiped out.

                                                          - Ken Davis, Don't Know Much About The Bible.

Back across the Atlantic, after Puritans gained prominence the most prominent Puritan, Oliver Cromwell, had this motto emblazoned on his heraldry:

Pax Quaeritur Bello
Peace is sought by War

Anyway, let's fast forward and concentrate on today's New Puritans.

By the way, who are today's New Puritans? Well, they're the ones who scream "Anti-Christian!" the loudest while softly whispering "Christian Only." The New Puritans are the ones who want tolerance for themselves, but insist on intolerance for other religions. The New Puritans are seeking their fortunes in the New World of Africa while being kept busy keeping their fortunes (and what dignity they have left) intact in America. And throughout all of their attempts at defense and expansion, a transcendent theme is becoming more evident: Christian Supremacy. Rick Warren slyly presented snippets of Christian Supremacy to Muslim-Americans last July 4th. Men like Rod Parsley and Pat Robertson have openly declared the preeminence of Christianity over every other religion, declaring them to be evil. And with his warped sense of history, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council shows just how much of a Supremacist he really is:

"While it is true that the United States of America was founded on the sacred principle of religious freedom for all, that liberty was never intended to exalt other religions to the level that Christianity holds in our country's heritage. Our Founders expected that Christianity--and no other religion--would receive support from the government as long as that support did not violate peoples' consciences and their right to worship. They would have found utterly incredible the idea that all religions, including paganism, be treated with equal deference."

Yeah. And some animals are more equal than others.

Christian Supremacy has been simmering for many years under the guise of "freedom of religion," simply because there were no formidable religions other than Christianity. Protestants could be content with bashing Catholicism, Catholics could revel in labeling Mormonism a cult and the most adverse enemy of all, Judaism, was never really a threat. What Christian Supremacists didn't expect was that the notion of religious freedom would somehow work against their notion that eventually everyone would become Christian. Blinded by the arrogance involved with the "One True Religion," they've been broadsided by America's determination not to show deference to any one religion. 

 

In other words, the New Puritans have at last noticed the Indians: True Religious Freedom.

 

The Tale of Clay and Harold: The Type Of (Ill) Treatment The AFA Can Believe In!

A Story So Righteously Vicious Only Bryan Fischer 

And His Followers Could Love It!

The story of Clay and Harold of Sonoma Co, CA has made the rounds on the web, so you might have already experienced the shock of the story. The 78-page suit (complaint) against the County of Sonoma makes for even more shocking reading. In a nutshell: Clay Greene, 78, was separated from his long time partner, Harold Skull, 88, after Harold was hospitalized. BOTH men were placed in nursing homes, all of their property sold off (even the cats were taken away!), Clay was prevented from seeing Harold and purposely kept unaware of his partner's condition. 

Even when Harold died. 

The County of Sonoma is now alleging that it was acting on behalf of Harold because there was domestic violence involved. Yeah, right. Look at the Bilerico Project response to the case. The county also described Harold and Clay as "roommates." Are disturbances between roommates considered "domestic" violence? How stupid is the County of Sonoma in saying that this was NOT a case involving gay partners? Do mere roommates have co-joining powers of attorney? Do mere roommates leave all of their property in each other's will? July 16th will be a date for everyone to mark: the case SHOULD receive a great deal of attention. The MSM, however, has failed to report on it at all. Hopefully, the power of the blogosphere will help to produce enough attention.

And the ties to the American Family Association?

The roots of the AFA's rabid homophobia go back as far as 1998, with conservative columnist Don Feder's rant in AFA's magazine, AFA Journal:

This is still (barely) a democracy. How many times do we have to say "no" - to domestic-partners ordinances, gay marriage, efforts to coerce the Boy Scouts and public school indoctrination - before the elite takes this resounding negative as an answer?

Enter Bryan Fischer:

It might be worth noting that what I actually suggested is that we impose the same sanctions on those who engage in homosexual behavior as we do on those who engage in intravenous drug abuse, since both pose the same kind of risk of contracting HIV/AIDS. I'd be curious to know what you think should be done with IV drug abusers, because whatever it is, I think the same response should be made to those who engage in homosexual behavior.

Remember, this is the same man who advocates deportation of ALL Muslims, American-born citizens or not. This is the same man who thinks that being a "Christian Nation" means being ONLY a "Christian Nation." Intolerance for other religions is considered righteous.

The AFA's campaign against gays goes beyond  the confines of gay marriage,  but suffice it to say that the case of Clay and Harold   would go far in eliciting feelings of elation and righteousness. After all, the case may be against the County of Sonoma, but it could just as well be against religious-based organizations like the AFA.  For example, if the hospital that notified the County about Harold were a faith-based hospital, what are the chances that  Harold and Clay would have been considered  "roommates" and not partners? 

Think about it. 

                                                                                                                               

UPDATE: Fischer's mudslinging ties gays, Muslims and the U.S. Armed Forces together into one evil cabal:

Bottom line: you want to know who's now running the U.S. Army, the U.S. Navy and the Marines and calling the shots where it counts? Fundamentalist Muslims and homosexual activists.

In fact, I'll predict that there will be a day of prayer at the Pentagon on May 6, and it will feature a Muslim imam, a homosexual clergyman, and no conservative Christians of any kind.

This is not your father's military. It's not even your father's country anymore.

The man and the organization are trying every rhetorical trick in the book to make sure that people like Clay Greene and Harold Skull never get justice.

Off to Obama Territory

The Right sneers at Obama's stint as a community organizer, but I can tell you that the South Side of Chicago is rough enough to challenge seasoned mayors of small towns in Alaska, even if they were popular enough to become the governor and served only half of the term. Come to think of it: has Palin ever SEEN an inner city? Has she ever campaigned in the ghetto? Anchorage isn't big enough to compare with the likes of Chicago, New York, L.A. Just among those three alone, there are probably 4 million potential voters. In this aspect of her "political career" she's more like George Bush: when she gets off a plane, she has no idea of where the hell she is. And doesn't really care.

Any ladle that dishes out some gravy, honey. Besides, she's probably spent the $100,000 fee before she's landed.

I'm leaving for Chicago on Thursday, and won't be back until Tuesday. There's family to visit (after 20 years!!) the Art Institute and The Museum of Science and Industry to see, and then there's Rush Limbaugh - The Musical and Billy Elliot.

The AFA and The Muslim Question: Deportation, Reservations, Concentration Camps or Gas Ovens?

Or Should We Have A Combination Of All Four?

When will the Southern Poverty Law Center list the American Family Association as a hate group? With the latest news, that sobriquet might not be long in coming.

Read this and weep ... for the  demise of America's compassion:

Right Wing Watch

[T]he most compassionate thing we can do for Americans is to bring a halt to the immigration of Muslims into the U.S. This will protect our national security and preserve our national identity, culture, ideals and values. Muslims, by custom and religion, are simply unwilling to integrate into cultures with Western values and it is folly to pretend otherwise. In fact, they remain dedicated to subjecting all of America to sharia law and are working ceaselessly until that day of Islamic imposition comes.

The most compassionate thing we can do for Muslims who have already immigrated here is to help repatriate them back to Muslim countries, where they can live in a culture which shares their values, a place where they can once again be at home, surrounded by people who cherish their deeply held ideals. Why force them to chafe against the freedom, liberty and civil rights we cherish in the West?

In other words, simple Judeo-Christian compassion dictates a restriction and repatriation policy with regard to Muslim immigration into the U.S.

The reasoning is warped, but neither criticism nor censure can stop Brian Fischer from realizing his dream of a strictly "Christian-only" America. Look at the quote again: it contains "national identity," "Islamic imposition" "a culture which shares their values," and "chafe against freedom." 


My writing has been criticised for using the (legitimate) word, "Christofascism." But I can't describe Fischer's idea in any other way. Reading between the lines , it's too obvious and makes  "The Jewish Question" look positively benign. This "modest proposal" is clear: "Hate Muslims. Muslims won't convert. All Muslims want to kill you. Muslims want to take over the world. Let them stick to their own kind or die." Fischer bases his entire stance on the research of Danish psychologist, Nicolai Sennels. Sennels chronicled the attitudes of Muslim criminals in Copenhagen. It basically matches up to profiling African-Americans in prison in this country.

While the website of the AFA has a kind of disclaimer ("(It should be noted that the American Family Association has not taken a position on this issue."), it hasn't come out against Fischer's blatantly Christofascist ideas either. And among his supporters (if she isn't, she will be) Michelle Malkin will become his media guru, helping to pave a smooth road to Fox News.

Fischer ended his article on deportation with an old maxim:  

It's often been observed that those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it. We are watching a dismal historical experiment in uncontrolled Islamic immigration unfold before our very eyes in Europe, and watching European culture disintegrate before our very eyes. Let's learn - and apply - the lessons from Europe. If we do not, it may soon be too late to save what is left of American culture.

But Fischer has yet to learn from history.

Setting aside the obvious parallels to Fascism, the Holocaust, and (Michelle Malkin's favorite spa/resort) Manzanar, let's look at America's most famous and first foray into mass deportation, also known as The Trail of Tears.

The Indian Removal Act
(wikipedia)

The Indian Removal Act, part of a United States government policy known as Indian removal, was signed into law by President Andrew Jackson on May 26, 1830

The Removal Act was strongly supported in the South, where states were eager to gain access to lands inhabited by the "Five Civilized Tribes". In particular, Georgia, the largest state at that time, was involved in a contentious jurisdictional dispute with the Cherokee nation. President Jackson hoped removal would resolve the Georgia crisis. The Indian Removal Act was also very controversial. While Native American removal was, in theory, supposed to be voluntary, in practice great pressure was put on Native American leaders to sign removal treaties. Most observers, whether they were in favor of the Indian removal policy or not, realized that the passage of the act meant the inevitable removal of most Indians from the states.

But did the Trail of Tears have "simple Judeo-Christian compassion"? Or Brian Fischer or Michelle Malkin to publicize its "compassion"? Fischer's irrational statements leave something to be desired. Humanity, possibly? Or has uprooting families from their homes and forcing them to abandon friends, families, careers, worldy belongings, education, all those things that attracted them to immigrate to this country suddenly have God's compassionate permission? 

And how do Muslim-Americans feel about people like Fischer?

James Zogby, American Muslim:

But the danger remains and the possibility of violence is real. And those in respected leadership roles need to recognize that, in the current environment, playing with matches can start fires. We’ve seen the ugly racist placards, heard the chants and shouted epithets, and witnessed the raw anger at rallies. Can violence be far behind?

Suddenly Fischer's "benign" proposal asks more questions that it answers:

1. Just WHO will be deported? Since being Muslim is advocating a religion and not a nationality, we have many, many people who are citizens of the United States. Do we deport only Iraqi-Americans? Turkish-Americans? Saudi-Americans? Lebanese-Americans? Pakistani-Americans? Egyptian-Americans?Algerian-Americans? Albanian-Americans? Indonesian-Americans? Libyan-Americans? The list could go on. It would be convenient to lump them all into  "would-be terrorists,"  but Americans would start seeing law-abiding, legal citizens hauled off for no apparent reason. AFA answer: who cares?

2. How would Muslim properties be sold, distributed and used? In the early days of Christianity, pagan temples were turned into churches or brothels. Will mosques be turned into unusual-looking WalMarts? (The most practical solution, I suppose). AFA answer: the compassionate thing to do would be to turn them into churches, but brothels would be more profitable.

3. Will Muslims who convert to Christianity still be forced out? If not, will there be a tribunal of sorts to ferret out "fake" Christians? Many Jews pretended to be converted in "Good Queen" Isabella's Spain - they were called "muranos." And if "fake" Christians are deported, won't they be killed as apostates? AFA Answer: Again, who cares?

4. Will Muslims, like the Japanese during WWII, be forced to sell their properties in a scant three days? Will there be a regulation stating that only true "Christians" (Like Pat Robertson) may purchase the land (at bargain basement rates). AFA Answer: Of course! This is a Christian Nation!!

5. Will the number of Muslims to be deported (estimated to be in the neighborhood of 4 million Americans) be too taxing for the economy to handle their deportation without considering alternatives? In other words, will outright extermination be cheaper? AFA Answer: we're thinking about it. Creativity is the key word here, so don't rush us.

Now comes the question: which religious group will be next? AFA Answer: whichever group we  hate.

A Brilliant Look At Benedict's Cover-up

Thanks to Bill Daly.  I would have published this       piece of art in my last post if I had seen it in time.      Nonetheless, it expresses more than meets the eye.

Look Everyone! I'm Subversive! I'm Insidious! I'm on Glenn Beck's Chalkboard!

This is satire at its most technologically brilliant! I particularly like the idea that my name translated through Greek, then Aramaic, then back to English, then combined with the letters G-R-L, comes out as the name of a 3000 year-old pagan deity which was actually the founder of the Democratic Party and the ACLU!

OMG! I'm so proud to be a liberal!!

Bully For The Press, But Boo For Benedict: Why Peggy Noonan and Benedict's Defenders Are Wrong

Timothy Shriver's Washington Post article, Can the pope restore the purity of Catholicism? is a wonderful and insightful piece - except for the title. It assumes that Catholicism has had "purity" for a long time. It hasn't. Catholicism has always been too complex for "purity" of any sort. Ever since the official acceptance of Christianity by Rome (313 CE), The Church has been a curious mixture of conflicting doctrines, artistic beauty, money, immense power, sincere faith and corruption. And perhaps in no other person are those qualities more evident than in pope Benedict XVI. To this man, change in the Church is anathema: Pious XII was his inspiration and John XXIII his enemy. 

That is why his supporters in the latest news about the on-going scandal of sexual abuse have a tough time convincing people that he is not culpable. Take Peggy Noonan of the  Wall Street Journal:

Let me repeat that: The press has been the best friend of the Catholic Church on the scandals because it exposed the story and made the church face it. The press forced the church to admit, confront and attempt to redress what had happened. The press forced them to confess. The press forced the church to change the old regime and begin to come to terms with the abusers...Without this pressure...the church would most likely have continued to do what it has done for half a century, which is look away, hush up, pay off and transfer.

I agree wholeheartedly. Then why would Noonan come up with this statement:

The most reliable commentary on Pope Benedict's role in the scandals came from John Allen of the National Catholic Reporter, who argues that once Benedict came to fully understand the scope of the crisis, in 2003, he made the church's first real progress toward coming to grips with it.

"Fully understand the scope of the crisis." The PRESS made Ratzinger understand. No one else did. Sheer conjecture but still valid: IF the press had not capitalized on the scandal, would Ratzinger have continued the old game of "pass the pedaphile priest"??

Come on, Peggy, Ratzinger knew about the abuse long before 2003; he had resources at his command to find out minute details about every priest in the Catholic Church. A hint of heresy never got past him and neither did a hint of sexual abuse. It's sheer idiocy to think that he knew nothing. And with that knowledge he doth sinned in doing nothing.

And there are Catholic leaders - like Bill Donohue of The Catholic League - think that the press is evil, comparing the "persecution" of Catholicism to anti-Semitism!  His own lame response to the scandal:

wikipedia:

On March 30, 2010, Donohue appeared on CNN's Larry King Live as part of a panel discussing sexual abuse of children by priests. Donohue blamed the decades-old problem on gay priests, claiming they could not be considered pedophiles because most of the offenses involved "post-pubescent" boys (defined in the interview as boys 12-years-old or older) and were thus "homosexual" acts.

Holy twisted reasoning!!

The Catholic Church (indeed, American Christianity as a whole) is infamous for not admitting culpability in past misdeeds. If Pious XII had admitted that he could have spoken out during the Holocaust would he still be (fast-tracked) on the road to canonization? If the Vatican would have voiced regret for its role in the Crusades and the expulsion of Moors from Spain and Portugal, would the radical Muslim world have as much animosity for Christianity as it does today?

As recently as the 1980s and 1990s, the media has forced the Catholic Church to admit to heinous acts against children: the Duplessis Orphan scandal in Canada and the Magdalene Laundry scandal in Ireland. In both cases, nuns were the perpetrators of torture, slavery, sexual abuse and even homicide over a period of decades. And the Church did more than simply cover up the bodies and place them in unmarked graves.

So the widespread cover-up of sexual abuse in the priesthood is not really surprising. And the abuse was around far longer than Joseph Ratzinger's time on earth. To think that he had nothing to do with it because he (re)acted after the media blew the whistle is polite wishful thinking. As head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, Ratzinger was, in effect, the Church's spin doctor: he was charged to protect the image of the Church as well as its doctrine from heresy. 

And there were times when he acted rather viciously.

Hans Kung was a trusted friend of Joseph Ratzinger in the late 60s. He even helped Ratzinger obtain a professorship at a university in Tubingen, Germany, where Kung was professor of theology. Later, Kung was stripped of his authority to teach theology by (then) Cardinal Ratzinger who was head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. The official reason: Kung denied the infalability of the pope. Another reason (according to conspiracy theorists): Kung was too close to John Paul I during his controversial tenure (30 days) and even more controversial death. Kung has since reiterated his criticism of the papacy and in particular of Benedict:

"Joseph Ratzinger has stood still because as a Bavarian Catholic in the Hellenistic tradition, interpreted in Roman terms, he wanted to stand still."

Timothy Shriver of The Washington Post put the scandal and its nuances quite well:

What's needed is a conversion of the bishops and the pope himself. That's right: It's time for the pope and the bishops to convert their culture to one that is centered on loving God from the depths of their souls and to leading a church that is as much mother as father, as much pastoral as theological, as much spiritual as doctrinal. It is time for them to listen to the deep and authentic witness of the people of faith, to trust the spirit that blows where it will, to abandon their defensiveness of their positions and trust only the gospel, and not their edifice of control. Conversion is a total experience -- letting go of the old and putting on the new.

That is something Benedict will never do. And there is no defense of a man who will not progress for the spiritual good of his flock. Benedict is not a shepherd. He is merely an old sentinel who stands guarding an old abusive system.

The Defenestration of The Hypocratic Oath: Doctors Who PreJudge You

Defenestration: to throw something or someone out of a high window, hence the term, "out the window" The most famous defenestration was the Defenestration of Prague, when Protestants threw the Catholic emissaries out of the castle window, starting the Thirty Years War. Defenestration was also a favorite form of execution of Bohemia. It is conjectured  that statesman Anton Masaryk was executed by the Communist Party by being thrown out the third story of the Czernin Palace.

These days, throwing something out the window is to eradicate or nullify it. We throw things "out the window" every day: a diet, an idea, a promise. An oath.

Like the Hippocratic Oath.

These days, doctors are no longer required to take the Hippocratic Oath. That's primarily because the Oath has evolved to suit a society's needs and a culture's norms. For example, the original Oath started thusly:

I swear by Apollo, the healer, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgment, the following Oath and agreement:

The classic:

I swear by Apollo the Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods, and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfill according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant: 

 The modern version:

I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant: 

Probably the most well-known tenet of the Oath:

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

The Hippocratic Oath was really the first of moral statement relating to humanity no matter who the person was or what station he or she held. It is important to note that it was a statement of true compassion in that it denotes unqualified acceptance of a person as a human being. Today, unfortunately, we are seeing the defenestration of the Hippocratic Oath for religious and political purposes.

Enter Dr. Steven Hotze

From Right Wing Watch:

Thin and long-faced, 46-year-old Steven Forrest Hotze has carved out a niche in local politics over the past decade as an unyielding and occasionally strident opponent of abortion and public acceptance of homosexuality... beliefs include the following:

• A wife may work outside the home only with her husband's consent

• "Biblical spanking" that results in "temporary or superficial bruises or welts" should not be considered a crime

• No doctor shall provide medical service on the Sabbath

• All disease and disability is caused by the sin of Adam and Eve

• Medical problems are frequently caused by personal sin

So if you should be so unfortunate as to require the services of Dr. Hotze, you'll be judged a sinner first, a patient second. Makes you kind of uncomfortable, doesn't it? And what if he treats you and you don't get well? Hmmm... In a car accident on a Sunday? Good luck!

Another doctor prejudges you according to your political beliefs:

The sign reads [in his outer office]:  "If you voted for Obama … seek urologic care elsewhere. Changes to your healthcare begin right now, not in four years."

And yet he denies that he's denying anyone healthcare!

Let's hope that throwing the Hippocratic Oath out the window doesn't become ... an epidemic.

Just a thought.

Happy Easter, My Ass!

Easter is probably the most twisted holiday we Americans are forced to endure: we attend church services to honor the resurrection of the Son of God, Jesus Christ, while wearing our finest clothes, eating chocolate bunnies, then coloring, hunting or rolling hard-boiled eggs. It beats Christmas for religiousity, Fourth of July for pride and Valentine's Day for consumption of chocolate. There is no connection between Christ on the Cross and the Easter Bunny except for the concept of spring and the earth's "resurrection" from winter.

Did you know that the concept of a dying-and-rising god was rather passe when Christ was crucified? Huh? Well then, how many could there have been? Try twenty. Yes, twenty. 20. One score. The most famous of these were Osirus and Mithras (who, BTW, was born in a cave of a virgin birth.)

The most original concept related to Easter, however, came with the maturation of Christianity: supreme guilt. The doctrine of Original Sin (attributed to St. Augustine - way to go, Auggie!) made Christians look at everyone in a different light. And they all looked BAD. Christ had died for EVERYONE'S sins. All of us should be extremely grateful! No? Then go to hell! 

Yes, Easter should be a time of rejoicing: because of Christ's death, we are forgiven all our sins. 

I'm sorry, but I can't rejoice. Perhaps because the hypocrites of the world have taken Easter and turned it into a time of extreme self-loathing. Yet what we really need to experience is a time of energy and progression - to a more peaceful and habitable world.

Simply Christians or Simply Terrorists: The Violence of Christofascism Comes Home To Roost

Both Progressive and Regressive Christians (aka Religious Right or Christofascists) are still reeling with the news about "Hutaree", its zeal, its militarism, its expanse and the fact that it views itself as 'Christian'. 

From Right Wing Watch:

"Many mainstream media outlets, like ABC and CNN, are irresponsibly reporting that those arrested in Michigan in the alleged plot to murder law enforcement officers are 'Christians,'" said Dr. Gary Cass of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission. "Even if they identify themselves as Christians, what they were allegedly planning is absolutely contrary to Christianity. They may have illicitly co-opted the Christian faith to justify their murderous intentions, but it is defamatory for the media to keep referring to them as Christians. They are simply terrorists."

So, were the knights of the Crusades 'simply terrorists'? Is Repent Amarillo really a terrorist group? What about Rev. Rod Parsley? Where is the dividing line? 

Dr. Cass is, of course, grasping at straws in attempting to distance himself and others of his Religious Right flock: it's rather counter-intuitive (much less, hypocritical) to say that anyone who identifies themselves as Christians are not Christians. Christians around the country have been saying that everyone should have the right to call themselves Christians. Also, a strange parallel of intolerance shows itself in the Christian view of the organization known as NAMBLA - National American Man-Boy Love Association. Christofascists point to it as an accepted and almost typical gay rights association - which it is not. They also extend its premise to all gays. What Cass is avoiding is this: militarism and potential violence exist in  today's American Christian landscape. Hutaree is an extreme (but real) version of Rod Parsley's vision of Christian soldiers. It's tone and rhetoric are equivalent to Repent Amarillo. It's hatred of non-Christians (Jews, "pagans," Muslims) is just as bad as Fred Phelp's hatred of gays or Father Charles Coughlin's anti-Semitism seventy years ago.

 

The dividing line, America seems to think, is between words and action. Christian pastors can spout all the military rhetoric they want. They are protected twofold: freedom of speech and separation of church and state. They have nothing to do with the actions taken by fringe groups. 

This is obvious, inane self-deception. Actions are almost always the result of words, especially when they take effect in the brains of an illiterate: the Elmer Gantrys egging on the Elmer Fudds.

HUTAREE

"Jesus wanted us to be ready to defend ourselves using the sword and stay alive using equipment," Hutaree.com reads. "The only thing on earth to save the testimony and those who follow it, are the members of the testimony, til the return of Christ in the clouds. We, the Hutaree, are prepared to defend all those who belong to Christ and save those who aren't. We will still spread the word, and fight to keep it, up to the time of the great coming."

Compare this statement to the one put out by Repent Amarillo:

A soldier for Christ wants to leave no man behind. We will fight unto death for the cause of eternal life through Christ Jesus. We will wage a good spiritual warfare until our King calls us home. May we leave this earth desperately clinging to one more lost soul.

The arrogance of today's Christofascists make them lax in regards to monitoring and censoring fringe groups like Hutaree. That inability to expel groups from more mainstream Christianity before violence starts may lead to a long period when Christian groups spend too much time and effort defending themselves, telling people what they are NOT than focusing on their real goals. This may seem a boon to secularists like myself. The problem with that is that people will have to die to achieve it. 

"Hutaree" is evidently a made up name which means nothing. It may, however, come to mean "violent but stupid Christofascists."


Just a thought.

Publish Post