Partisan, Partisan Fly Away Home…

Today we find an article by a rabid partisan pretending to be a conservative:
Mike Adams published this piece on

Well, that left a bad taste in my mouth. If Mr. Adams wants to call Leftist and Progressive attitudes Liberal then someone shuold point out that this would leave us with NO term for classical Lberal thought at all.

I am sure this would please Mr. Adams, but I think the rest of us might want to live in a world a little more compassionate than 1638 Massachutsetts!

Let us look at this list of propogandistic canards and take a peek through partisan colored glasses at the world as he sees it.

“…Abortion: Liberals support abortion not because they anticipate needing an abortion in the wake of an incident of rape or incest. They overwhelmingly want to escape the natural consequences (pregnancy) of a freely chosen decision to engage in sex outside of marriage.”

According to the information in MY world most contraception is used BY married people. Is Mr. Adams claiming that anyone who is not a devout Catholic or some such engaging in sex outside of “marriage”? Probably not, instead he is simply lying about the actual usage in order to support his dubvious attack on the very term “Liberal”. A term that, in its classic meaning, is embraced by many who read, write and edit this site.

This argument is nonsensical in other ways… Does Mr. Adams wear clothes? Does he cook his food? If so, he is clearly guilty of attempting to avoid the natural consequances of exposing himself to a non-tropical climate and to the trials of chewing and digesting natural foods. Not to mention killing off the natural bugs that he is trying to avoid in his zeal to eat things like pork and such.

The bottom line seems to be that Mr. Adams feels that anyone who does not embrace his STRICT Judeo-Christian worldview is “attempting to avoid the consequences” of the “natural order”. As an argument against abortion this falls far short of being persuasive to those who are not already in Mr. Adams’s choir.

“Social Security: Saving money is difficult and it requires a lot of patience and a general willingness to delay gratification. Social security is nice for those who never get around to investing and saving money on their own. When the government does it for you, it insulates you, in part, from the consequences of your bad financial decisions.”

Again with the shoving Puritan ethics down the throat of every man, woman and child in sight! Imagine the “compasion” of a mind that views every mom and pop in America as being responsble for learning, understanding and having the time and skill to apply sophisticated savings and investing strategies.

Mr. Adams may argue that forcing HIM to participate is wrong, but here he seems to feel that to even WANT this saftynet available is somehow a crime.

We are only two points into his worldview but let us add it up:

A working class family, with no doubt 3 to 9 kids, must find the time for, and have the education to pursue, a consistant long term savings scheme and not fall afoul of random economic downturns or bank failures, or their old age is of no concern to Mr. Adams. Am I missing something Virginia, or is Santa wearing a suit made of Bod Cratchet’s skin?

“Separation of Church and State: Our Founders thought it would be a bad idea to have a national religion.”

This is a MILD undertatement to say the least, It was the Puritan theocratic tendencies of Mr. Adams’s heros that provoked the majority of colonies to vote Aye on that amendment!

“But since the Warren Court era political liberals have been using this notion of a “wall of separation” to exclude from the public square all kinds of constitutionally protected religious speech.”

Such as? The main result to me has been to require that any voice/access given to one religion must be given to all, or none may have it.

It means that religious instruction is not allowed to be endorsed in anyway by the government.

It means that no citizen must face a judge or teacher or cop feeling excluded by that official’s blatant application of their tribal rites to the excercise of their duties to the public.

“In reality, liberals don’t want a “wall” they want a partition – something they can take down and put back up in order to attack religion while banning close scrutiny of their ideas.”

No, the Partisans want that. ALL Partisans of any political stripe want; “freedom for me but not for thee” in order to apply, without friction, their “perfect plan” for society. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Osama, and de Sade all shared the same mindset. They simply used different excuses for their evils.

“..One of the professors on my campus teaches that Paul was … Ultimately, these folks hope that they can convert people away from antiquated religions like Judaism and Christianity and towards newer, hipper religions like multi-culturalism and diversity. “

Oh my, Virginia I am sorry about that. It is not pleasent to snort milk through your nose from a sudden laugh.

Mr. Adams, PAUL was the FOUNDER of a “hipper”, “Multi-cultural and diversity” oriented heretical offshoot of the original Christianity. Peter and James themselves were in no way happy with the man’s theological opinions on most things; they merely gave in when his numbers outstripped theirs and his church became the default “Christianity”. And now the Conservative of the conservative defend him as the bastion of the faith. The more things change, the more they stay the same Virginia!

“…No college professor (of religion, no less) would say “I don’t know whether there is a God and, by the way, I am blissful about my ignorance.”

Wow, all I can say is Mr. Adams needs to look up the difference between know and believe. I know that if I drop a rock on my foot it will hurt. There is NO way, to date to KNOW that God exists; this is in the realm of faith. By the same token it is not possible to KNOW that God does NOT exist.

Thus, both the adamant Theist (Mr. Adams) and the adamant atheist are “believers” not “knowers”. This is simply the way the universe works; to NOT be able to be “blissful” about it is the delusional path, as far as I can see.

“…What kind of education are we providing when professors are teaching courses aimed at indoctrination into atheism?”

About as good an education as you get NOW at schools run by people on the THEISTIC side like PAt RObertson. A biased education full of holes and illogic and hatred.

Mr. Adams, the nasty tactics of the LEFTISTS donot excuse the nasty tactics of the far RIGHT any more than YOUR hero’s excesses excuse the ecesses of the LEFT.

“And what are we to do about it?”

Hopefully grow up, and accept that without CLASSIC Liberal thought NO society can be anything but harsh and nasty. Hopefully start adressing the proper segments of society and not demonize the “opposition” simply because they do not think like you do.

The line between Jonestown and Jesus Camp is hardly worth mentioning to those who seek solutions, instead of domination.

“The real problem is that many of these atheists have made a free choice to attack traditional Christian beliefs and simultaneously wish to erect a “partition of separation” to keep Christians from defending themselves.”

And the actions of Leftist atheists gives you reason to attack the concept of “Liberal”? I fail to follow your “logic”, Mr. Adams.

How about a course in the effects of theistic and non-theistic tribalism on a society when carried out by self-serving, heartless individuals bent on suppressing ALL dissent in the name of “harmony”?

Spread this around!!!!! Google protects Islam!!!

Here is a piece from Jihad Watch that needs to be spread around!!!

“…the best minds at Google, a pioneer and master of Internet technology, can’t seem to figure out how to wire their search box so that it pops up suggestions for “Islam is” that are comparable to the suggestions you get for “Buddhism is” or “Hinduism is” or “Christianity is.” Try it for yourself. Search for “Christianity is” at Google and a host of negative recommendations pop up:

It’s the same thing for “Buddhism is,” “Hinduism is,” etc. But when you search for “Islam is,” no negative recommendations come up — indeed, no recommendations at all:

The same “bug” appears at Google’s YouTube.

What a coincidence that Google’s “bug” would crop up in a way that shelters the world’s most thin-skinned religion from criticism! The one religion shielded from adverse judgment at Google is also the only religion that has is currently engaged in an organized campaign to stifle honest discussion about its texts and teachings that inspire violence.
Read it all…

Dear Mr. Rivers and all Islamist Apologists: “…and the horse you rode in on!”


Welcome to a unique opportunity. A chance to peer into the arrogant murk of the mind of a Leftist Propagandist. Today Heretics Crusade analyzes:

Cause and Effect:
An American Reflects on 9/11
Dennis Rivers — September 11, 2004
article in the Santa Barbara Independent newspaper

“A few months after 9/11, a group of Tibetan Buddhist monks visited La Casa de Maria Retreat Center, near Santa Barbara, and I went to meet them. At the time, still reeling from the emotional impact of the 9/11 attacks, I found myself feeling somewhat at odds with these maroon-robed visitors. The monks seemed to me to be living in their little cocoon of Buddhist spirituality. I wanted them to respond more visibly to the tragic history that was unfolding on the stage of the world.”

From the start MR. Rivers complete self-absorption is evident in his words. He cares little for the religion or perspective of the people who hold it if they do not share his moment-to-moment concerns.

“I asked one monk (who happened to be from England) what he thought of the events of 9/11. He very quickly and assuredly said “There are no accidents in life. Every effect has its cause.” And that was it. Case closed. This, I thought, was the most wooden answer any human being could have given to my question. Had he no heart, this fellow so sure of himself, so sure of his doctrine? He seemed to be implying that the 9/11 victims has somehow caused their own suffering. In a very un-Buddhist mood, I wanted to shake him, to tell him to wake up and respond to the suffering of people in the real world.”

Of course Mr. Rivers never considered that the “cause” the monk reffer4ed to might have been the Jihadist mentality coupled with Western complacence in their overwhelming power. He starts with a completely selfish perspective and comes to a completely self-centered conclusion: the monk doesn’t care the “Right way”.

“Several years have gone by, and I have had plenty of time to sort out my angry reaction to this monk.”

Translation: “the Leftist powers that be have patiently explained the errors of our ways to those of us who mistakenly thought that the bad guys ultimately to blame for 9/11 were Muslims instead of Americans.”

“…in relation to 9/11, we are now slowly realizing that this tragedy was not a random event, not a bizarre aberration.”

No, it was not, there were clear warnings going back to the 1800’s about the intent of extremists Muslims to attack the West as soon as they had the resources to do so.

“For the past half-century the United States has been following policies in the Muslim world that seem to me to almost guarantee an explosion sooner or later.”

At least according to the analysis of Mr. Rivers “progressive” handlers. To the Leftist leadership anything that anyone does that does not follow their agenda is “reason” for the offender to be assaulted.

“While very few, if any, of the individuals in the World Trade Center on 9/11 had anything to do with the formulation of those policies, they were like molecules of water in the pot put on the stove, as are we all. This leads to one of the most painful paradoxes of our time. No one deserves to die such a fiery death as the 9/11 victims; and on the other hand, none of us can completely insulate ourselves from the consequences of the actions taken in our name.”

It is a constancy of the Leftist arrogance that all evils must be laid at the feet of the West, white Christians especially. The Leftist condemns others for not “respecting indigenous cultures”, but to them no non-western culture has any Real ability to determine their OWN goals or actions in the first place!

All of them supposedly react ONLY to the actions of the Leftists own culture. (which embarrasses the Leftist with it’s successes and therefore must be humbled before the, also embarrassingly, NON civilized peoples of the world). Thus all failings of any non-Western peoples to act in “civilized” fashion have nothing to do with that people’s own customs or attitudes. These poor, helpless semi-humans merely react like prodded beasts to our sophisticated and evilly intelligent agendas. As far as I can tell this is the true attitude behind the Leftist agenda, it just doesn’t make sense else why they would do so much evil to those they claim to love.

It is this mentality that gives us bi-lingual education when the overwhelming evidence is that students from foreign language cultures do BEST when immersed immediately in the new language. Why do they promote it then? It is “nicer” to give the poor sons and daughters of the Leftist’s maid’s instruction in their own tongue! After all, we can’t expect them to just jump in and become one of us can we?

Or is that the point? Keep the kids speaking Spanish or Hindi or whatever, and keep them maids and gardeners instead of being competition for the Leftist’s own children? Here is a new Leftist term, compassionate racism.

“It is now widely recognized that the United States has grievously antagonized and agitated the Muslim world, especially in the following six ways:”

I could respond to this directly, instead I will let “Patrick Henry”, a songwriter from the ‘net, now sadly M.I.A. do it for me:

“1. In the 1950s we overthrew the elected government of Iran and supported the return of the Shah, whom the Iranians did not want back. The Shah ruled with an iron hand, and the Iranians have not forgotten who gave him to them.”

In his haste to whip America for its sins Mr. Rivers conveniently forgets that the 9/11 attacks were committed by Sunni Muslims, who hate and detest the Shi’ites of Iran.

“2. For the sake of commercial gain, political advantage, and cheap oil, we have accepted and supported military dictatorships in countries throughout the Muslim world, from Nigeria to Indonesia, all the while preaching democracy and respect for human rights. When Saddam Hussein (who stayed in power with U.S. help) gassed his own people in the 1980s, we did not protest, because at that moment it was politically inconvenient for us to do so.”

Another convenient lapse of memory here: there are nothing BUT dictatorships in the Middle East. It also could be said that those “evil dictatorships” that the U.S. supported were, on balance, less violent toward their own people than the ones that we did NOT influence. The complaint seems to be more about the interference in things Mr. Rivers does not approve of been interfered with, as opposed to the actual acts committed. Case in point: the Muslims nations had nothing to say on their own part about Saddam gassing a bunch of Kurds.

I can’t think that this was ever a real source of animosity toward the U.S. by Muslims. The theme seems to be that we are blamed for acting when we do, and for not acting when we don’t. I have heard this one before: Heads you lose, tails I win.

“3. In the 1980s we poured billions of dollars in arms and support into Muslim hate groups in Pakistan, to support an armed campaign against the Soviets in Afghanistan (we called them “freedom fighters,” at the time).”

Of all the smarmy, self satisfied attempts at confusing truth this one takes the cake! “Soviets in Afghanistan”? What a terse way to say “Invasion and brutally inhuman occupation of a mostly tribal society by a fully mechanized and heartless army bent on stealing a path to oil and a warm water port”. And we dared to call those who fought them “freedom Fighters” without first firmly establishing each groups religious and political reliability? Wow, how heinous a crime we have committed against Muslims everywhere!!!

“Afghanistan was ground to pieces between the armed might of the Soviet Union, and the armed might of our CIA-backed legions. One scholar has noted that there had never been a global Muslim jihad movement until the CIA funded one.”

Really? It wasn’t more like after the Soviets withdrew the Leftists in the U.S. Gov forced a rapid withdrawal of U.S. aid and put a stop to any attempts to seriously influence the new Afghan regime for the stability of the region until the Taliban types had taken all the power? It wasn’t that THEN the Taliban turned on the people? I guess I must have been hallucinating when I lived through the chronology of events the first time around.

“4. While various U.S. administrations have tried to play a mediating role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we do not seem to have any real principles that we will stick to.”

Finally, a statement I can agree with! However, I imagine that my opinion of what was “principal” and what was “not sticking to it” is diametrically opposed to Mr. Rivers’ idea on the subject.

“We also continue to give and lend billions of dollars in military aid to Israel, encouraging the military-might-is-the-only-answer wing of Israeli politics, alienating Muslims around the world and cutting the ground out from under our role as mediators.”

Why do I feel that Mr. Rivers’ idea of “our Role” is to abandon Israel and let the “alienated” Muslims swamp them in the name of “mediation”?

“5. For most of the past century the United States has been the largest arms exporter in the world. We invent and sell various instruments of death to everyone who will buy and look the other way as they kill one another. Although the United States is the most influential country in the world, we exert no moderating influence on the arms trade. Thus, governments around the world, including those of Muslim countries, spend money on arms instead of on the real needs of their peoples, breeding poverty, corruption and resentment.”

This is simply a lie, the U.S. has one of the strictest systems limiting sale of arms to non-national groups and marginal nation states. It is countries like France and Russia and Libya and such that have a bill of conscience regarding sale of “anything to anyone”, not us.

“6. We also export an endless stream of violent movies and TV shows, showing people just how to use those guns, bombs, missiles, bazookas, and God knows what else, to solve every problem. Our strong tradition of moment-to-moment freedom of expression makes it almost impossible for us to think about the long term consequences when free expression glorifies people killing each other. At the risk of offending just about everybody, I must confess how deeply convinced I am that the “Terminator” movies, and their blood-drenched ilk, are the theory, and 9/11 is the practice. Do we really want to teach people around the world that killing is fun? How many more Columbines and 9/11’s will it take to get us to look at the shadow side of our own freedom?”

Finally, the Fascism of the Left exposes itself! In the name of not offending people who are far more offensive than we, we must censor our very words and songs and movies lest they travel beyond our borders and spark a righteous Jihad against our horrific rudeness!

So, people who feel stoning is the appropriate way to treat the trauma of rape might not be hurt in their sensitive feelings James Cameron and Quantin Tarentino must submit all their works for prior review. Sounds reasonable to me. I am feeling a touch nauseous though Virginia. Please, pass me the Dramamine.

“To sum up, the United States, for all its many virtues of dynamism and creativity, also happens to be a massive producer and exporter of both the culture and the instruments of violence.”

And we all KNOW that whenever we find non-Westerners who have no exposure to our media or weapons we find only peaceful, harmonious societies, respectful of women, children and the rights of all minority races and faiths? Right? Don’t we? Oh, Tell me that this isn’t a lie too, Virginia!!!

“It now seems to me that the Buddhist monk was right. Every effect does have its cause. It was only a matter of time, in a world made small by airplanes, before the violence we have exported would return to us.”

A small-souled, scared man seeks an answer to why he is terrified. Not being able to influence the ones who make him afraid, he attacks those that protect him. Sad little man.

“Like alcoholics in a 12-step meeting, the time has come for our “bomb-oholic” culture to face the basic truths of our life:”

Do I even need to point out how obscene it is to call the West “bomb-oholic” in a discussion involving the West and Muslim radicals? Dennis is truly off in a land of his own imagination.

“1. The sorrow of 9/11 is, at the deepest level, of our own making.”

If you mean that we failed to see warning signs of the groups intent then you are right. If you mean that we “deserved it” then you, my friend, are no better than those that flew the planes in MY eyes.

“2. We can live differently, in relation to the world, and set different forces in motion.”

Translation: ” I am SCARED, someone make it STOP!!! Maybe, if we drop the guns, and do what they want, the bad guys will all go away. DON’T YOU UNDERSTAND I AM SCARED, AND WE MUST DO SOMETHING.”

“To imagine now that we will be able to shoot and bomb our way out of the consequences of all our previous promotion of shooting and bombing, is like proposing to a gambler that he will be able to gamble his way out of the consequences of all his previous gambling. Not a very carefully thought-through plan, I must say.”

I bet Mr. Rivers thinks that “Violence never settled anything” is a profound statement. In his Leftist arrogance Mr. Rivers never gives the radical Muslims the respect of believing that THEY believe in their own ideology. The only role he can see for them is as a reactionary sock puppet to his dominant West’s actions.

“The alternative is clear, and is worth saying again: We can live differently, and set different forces in motion.”

Yes, it is Mr. Rivers, We CAN live like Men and act like those to whom civilization is a previous achievement instead of living like a slave to the barbarisms of those who hate us not matter what we do.

Mr. Rivers, in the 1940’s the founder of the Muslim brotherhood was disgusted and assailed the horrific decadence and immorality that he had seen in America. What did he see? Hollywood? A party in New York? No, he saw a Midwestern church social dinner…with men and women dancing together. So show some respect Dennis, to those who want to kill us for their OWN reasons, not yours.

Semantic Confusion: “The Religious Right”, Allies or Antagonists?

The Confusion of Tongues
What You Said Ain’t What They Heard

(Guy DeWhitney: This article was one I published a while back on David Horowitz’s  The commentary response was enormous and spirited, with the consensus agreeing with almost all of my proposal.)

I have noticed lately a serious impediment to any real communication across political lines. It is something that can affect anyone writing or speaking about politics in America today. The problem lies in the term “Religious Right”.

On the one hand Conservative Christians do not seem to understand that non-Christians, many just as conservative see the term as a negative if not a pejorative. On the other hand non-Christians, Moderates, Liberals and Leftists do not seem to “get it” that many sane, un-hypocritical Conservative Christians define themselves with that same term.

When used by the middle/left the term virtually NEVER seems to mean anything BUT a classic, Right-wing “I’m right because the Bible says so, you can’t be moral without Jesus, this is a Christian Nation and non-Christians should not be allowed to influence schools and government” hypocrite-in-Christian’s-clothing” sort of person.

To say that this confusion impedes communication, compassion and compromise would be an understatement of monumental proportions.

Because of this confusion we recently saw Chris Mathews of MSNBC using the term in one way and offending NRB Columnist Paul Cooper who uses it in another. Paul responded by light of his definition which caused me to misunderstand and I started to type a flaming reply. Then I found out what Paul really meant by it; “those to the Right of middle who are Christian”.

The end result was that we barely missed getting in an argument over nothing. Both of us would have felt attacked by and embittered toward someone who should be an ally on the subject.

This problem in definitions needs to be resolved in order for NewsReal Blog to have any chance of changing partisans into partners on issues that affect all of us.

The last few days I have been asking everyone I can who THEY think of when they hear the term “Religious Right”.

Overwhelmingly those that did not self describe as Conservative Christians seem to believe the term to mean “the folks who believe being Christian gives them a preferred political status and the right to impose an overtly Christian character on civil society”.

Not one person I talked to that described themselves as moderate or liberal (regardless of their religion) saw the term as referring to any other group. ONLY the Conservative Christians I spoke with felt that it meant the “Right side of the spectrum of all religious Christians in the U.S.”

It is pretty clear that this confusion cannot be allowed to go on. As a start I propose a poll. Not a “vote” for one definition by majority rule but simply a poll to make us aware of Whom thinks What means Which.

I self identify as:

a) Non-religious (Atheist, Agnostic, Don’t Care)

b) A Nominal Christian

c) A Devout Christian (Liberal Politics)

d) A Devout Christian (Conservative Politics)

e) Jewish (Conservative politics)

f) Jewish (Liberal politics)

g) A Conservative Christian or Jewish far to the Right of the ones the public calls conservative. (“They call me Nut-case but Jesus/G*d will bless me for it”)

h) A Nominal Muslim

i) A Devout Muslim

j) A Devout Muslim (“They call me Terrorist but Allah(pbuh) will bless me for it!”)

To Me “Religious Right” Means:

A) Conservative Religious persons; i.e. devout religious people of any faith that fall to the Right of Middle in politics

B) Religious hypocrites that believe the “unquestionable Truth” of their religion gives them a preferred position in the political process. (This description fits not only Christian chauvinists but also Islamic Supremacists etc.)

C) Conservative Christians who use their religion as a guide in life. Including politics.

D) Same as (B) but limited to Christians

E) Something Else

The information this poll provides may well prove very valuable but we still need to agree on what the term means here at NewsRealblog.

I feel that being understood accurately by the largest number of people is more important than being clear only to compatriots. I cannot see that preaching to the choir is very productive. Therefore I propose this array of definitions:

For (A) I think the term “Religious Conservative” would be less likely to be misunderstood.

The subset of people described by (B) can be called “Religious Radicals” or “Theocrats”.

For (C) I can see no reason not to simply use “Christian Conservative” since it is clear and self-explanatory.

We should try to refer to (D) as “The Religious Right”.

Being clear with how we use these terms may not solve all our differences but, it will certainly not hurt our efforts to  resolve them.

Language is Humanity Beating Broken Rhythms On a Pot With a Spoon While Believing We Make Music That Stirs the Heart of God

Taliban and “Religious Right” Can Truly Relate

In this partisan time let me preface my thoughts by saying that I am NOT a Democrat or Leftist. Nor am I an atheist or anti-religion. Anyone who has read even a few of my articles will know that I attack partisanship anywhere, Left or Right.

I have great respect for Mr. Cooper of NewsRealblog. I find his writing and analysis to be almost always intelligent and insightful. Then there are those times when he tells us that following his sub sect [Conservative] of his sect [Protestant] of his religion [Christianity] somehow makes people immune to groupthink.

In addition I do NOT have a shred of respect for either party in the mentioned video. I have not even watched it.

I am writing here about Mr. Cooper’s response to the simple statement:

Matthews: “The group in this country that most resembles the Taliban, ironically, is the Religious Right.”

Mr. Cooper might be surprised to hear it but the majority of Americans would more or less agree with that statement. When it comes to their views on Constitutional secular government and their visions of a “godly” society they [the Religious Right and Taliban] are like twins separated at birth.

The paradox of the partisan mentality is their ability to believe the unsupportable. They believe that all criticisms of the opposition are likely to be true but that none of the accusations leveled at their group ever are. When it is put that way everyone agrees that partisanship is bad. What partisans will never agree to however is the idea that they themselves are partisans. After all, how can you be a partisan when you are right?

One thing I have always admired about the Jewish religion is that it teaches one to accept criticism, even by enemies as a grace. They are taught to be thankful for an opportunity to think about how they can be a better person. I hope Mr. Cooper will take my response in this spirit.

Let me ask Mr. Cooper a question. Which present day American group’s tactics most resemble the Taliban’s? Of the groups active today who other than Fred Phelps’ minions would even come to mind? The terrorist tactics of the 60’s and 70’s have passed from virtually all politically active groups in America. What remains is Phelps’ scare tactics of Hellfire and emotional intimidation. And from where does the Phelps fringe emanate? The Religious Right.

Mr. Cooper tried to show that the Taliban are known for things the Religious Right is not. Unfortunately the examples he chose remind non Religious Right folks more of the ways in which they do resemble each other.

Cooper: “The Taliban are known for wanting government to uphold the strictest form of Sharia law. They even add additional laws to it. They are especially known for their degradation of women. Women are kept in oppressive attire and wife-beating is legal.”

Can it be that Christian Conservatives truly cannot see the shadow of the Christian Right-wing in those words? Is it not an open fact that the “Religious Right” as embodied in the statements of its leaders seeks a world that is very similar to the Taliban’s?

Pat Robertson has lamented many times about Christians not being allowed to interpret the Constitution to dominate all others in the name of Christ. When did Jerry Falwell ever shy from seeking to make his personal religion the law of the land?

If you narrow your focus to only look at America then yes, Virginia the native group that stands out as oppressive towards women and children is the Religious Right.

Let us pause and define another term; Religious Right. This is no more a synonym for Christian Conservative than Obama is for “liberal”. The Religious Right is unyielding, partisan and does not question the “truth” they wish to force on the rest of us any more than the Taliban do.

The only real difference between the far Right and the far Left is the source of their “truth”; God or Man. The only real difference between the Taliban on one side and Phelps and his less obnoxious brethren on the other is how violently they impose their worldview. Both are inimical to a secular, Constitutional society.

Please do not take the wrong message from my words. The Christian version is not as vicious as the Taliban because of the core message of Christianity and the influence of Western Enlightenment thinking. But, they both seek theocracy in their own words.

Any ideology can be used for evil but historically Christianity has shown itself to be able to bounce back from the edge. In contrast Islam and Marxism are designed to PROMOTE aggressive partisan behavior. It is the people who use Christianity or Islam or Marxism to be tyrants that are evil. We should not obscure the similarities of those that seek to misuse power.

Should I not be sad when Christian Conservatives, who embrace all The Constitution stands for, turn a blind eye to the religion some evil-doers use to justify their goal of tyranny?