Saturday, November 19, 2005

Religious Freedom For Reich Wingers; Everyone Else Be Damned.

In 1992, the GOP was officially taken over the by Christian Right. Since then they have used the reigns of the party to, as they put it, “defend the assault on Christianity.” But is there really an assault on the Christian faith?

Reich wingers have continually lamented the ACLU, and other independent organizations who work to protect the civil liberties of all Americans. With the ACLU particularly, the Cons have been most vocal with their work on preventing an establishment of religion by the federal government. While Republicans have pushed for the 10 Commandments to be displayed in public facilities, including public schools, the ACLU have worked to protect the religious freedoms of those who are not Judea-Christians.

The Cons have twisted this logic around, saying that they are the ones who are protecting the right of “freedom of religion”, apparently by trying to force their own religion down the rest of the country’s throat. But if this is the case, as they say, then one should expect that they would be protective of all faiths.

That logic quickly falls to the waist side, once you remember that we are waging a war on “terrorism”, which is essentially, Reich-wing code for waging a war against Islam. While the squatter in the White House may be too PC to say it out loud, he has a vast chorus of propagandists, Bill O’Reilly to name just one, who will gleefully attack the Muslim faith for all they can muster.

The Islam fly-in-the-ointment aside, one should at least expect the Reich wing not to attack a Christian church. Well, you would expect wrong.

Earlier this month, The Washington Post reported that Bush’s IRS is attempting to remove the tax-exempt status of All Saints Episcopalian Church in Pasadena, California. IRS law states the churches can keep their tax-exempt status, so long as they do not endorse, or support a political candidate for office. Despite that several Catholic Churches publicly stated that they would not give communion to Kerry voters, much less Kerry himself, in the lead-up to the 2004 election, the IRS instead chose to go after All Saints for a sermon by Rev. George F. Regas, which discussed what Jesus Christ might say to George W. Bush and John Kerry.

The brilliant and moving sermon, which in part stated: “Jesus looking at the United States, the most powerful nation in the history of civilization, disavows any path that affirms grief must lead to war; Jesus refuses to accept the violence of war as the necessary consequences of our tragic losses on September 11th.

“Maybe you are calling Jesus naïve, but he points us to the truest reality in the universe: ‘Mercy brings mercy and revenge brings revenge.’”

Because All Saints preached a sermon that read from Matthew 5:9 “Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the Children of God”, the “Godly Man” in the White House sicced the IRS dogs on them. Meanwhile, on The 700 Club the “Christian Conservative” Pat Robertson gets a complete pass for his comments in October of 2003, when he said, “If I could just get a nuclear device inside [the] Foggy Bottom [section of Washington, D.C.], I think that’s the answer.” If Robertson had been a Muslim he would be enjoying the tropical heat of Guantanamo.

The Reich wing does not favor religious freedom for anyone. They simply want to force you to pray to their “Conservative” God, everyone else be Damned. And despite that nowhere in the Bible does it state that God is in need of the state to enforce Faith, you can count on the GOP for that little extra push. Just don’t tell them that the 10 Commandments doesn’t mention abortion or homosexuality, unless you wish the IRS to come knocking at your door.

3 Comments:

Blogger MiamiMiami said...

Bob Graham lately posted an op-ed piece stating how he never voted for the war in Iraq but here is an interesting piece by Bill Bennett. Very very interesting indeed....


On Bob Graham, Pre-War Intelligence, and Murtha's Charges
From Claremont.Org, 11/20/05
The interesting thing of late is the liberal effort not only to re-write history, but to reassign blame (Jeff Jacoby does a good job today of showing how Democrats voted for the Patriot Act then campaigned against it, for one example)....Today's rewrite and re-assignment is about what they knew when they authorized force....two things of interest to note:

1. Bob Graham has an op-ed in today's Washington Post claiming intel was doctored and that's why he voted against use of force, but in 2002 his reasons were not these, he said the resolution was not--hold on to your seats--strong enough:

Below are some other excetpts of what Graham was saying in those days--and you'll note, he fears WMD attacks out of Iraq, he states Hussein has WMDs. He did not say the intelligence about WMDs was doctored, he just thought other regimes and organizations more dangerous or more immediately worthy of attack, that sanctions were working for the time-being, and that Hussein would, indeed, use his WMDs if we attacked him then:

On Lou Dobbs, 11-19-02: "[M]y concern is that we also have good intelligence to the effect that once a war with Iraq starts, and once Saddam Hussein`s back is against the wall, he`s about to lose power, that`s when he becomes the most dangerous, including dangerous in terms of using his weapons of mass destruction in conjunction with international terrorist groups to try to kill Americans inside the United States."

On Cavuto, 10-16-02: "I'm not saying that Saddam Hussein is anything other than an evil person who`s done a horrific set of things to his own people and his thumbed nose at the world community. The question, to me, starts with report of our intelligence agencies, which said that Saddam Hussein is the most dangerous when his regime is about to be toppled. And what is he likely to? He`s likely to strike out against his neighbors such as Turkey and Israel. He`s likely to strike out against our troops, and using international terrorists who are embedded in the United States trying to kill Americans here at home. In my judgment, we need to try to set the table before we start the war in Iraq by taking out as many of those international terrorists as possible so their ability to kill us will be reduced."

From St. Petersburg Times, Oct. 20, 2002: excerpting from his Senate Floor Statement: "But tonight I have to vote no on this resolution. The reason is that this resolution is too timid. It is too limited. It is too weak. This resolution fails to recognize the new reality of the era of terrorism. "Now, there are good reasons for considering attacking today's Italy, meaning Iraq. Saddam Hussein's regime has chemical and biological weapons and is trying to get nuclear capacity. But the briefings I have received have shown that trying to block him and any necessary nuclear materials have been largely successful, as evidenced by the recent intercept of centrifuge tubes. And he is years away from having nuclear capability. So why does it make sense to attack this era's Italy, and not Germany, especially when by attacking Italy, we are making Germany a more probable adversary?" ---

Point 2: The invaluable FactCheck.Org from the Annenberg School puts an end to the charge that Bush doctored intelligence & that he had access to information Members of the Legislative branch did not, note: "No hard evidence has surfaced to support claims that Bush somehow manipulated the findings of intelligence analysts. In fact, two bipartisan investigations probed for such evidence and said they found none."

& "A point worth noting is that few in Congress actually studied the intelligence before voting. The Washington Post reported: "The lawmakers are partly to blame for their ignorance. Congress was entitled to view the 92-page National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq before the October 2002 vote. But . . . no more than six senators and a handful of House members read beyond the five-page executive summary."

1:23 PM  
Blogger MiamiMiami said...

Read this only if you want the truth...

Factcheck.org

1:31 PM  
Blogger MiamiMiami said...

Truth Serum for Democrats!

7:24 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home