Theocrats

Michael at Rantophilia feels I have "gone too far" in referring to those who advocate mixing religion and government as theocrats. I could have gone much further, but I don't. What Michael appears to be criticizing me on is that I either don't name names (which religious sects) or that I am painting anyone who wants more religion in government as theocratic.

I can name names. It is clear that most conservative Christian denominations that put out spokes people want a theocracy. The problem here is that Michael may not understand what I mean by theocracy and my reference to Iran. That also plays into my "generalization" about those who want any religion in government.

If you want religion into government then I am guessing (or you could say generalizing) that 95% of those people want their religion into government, not any religion. They don't want Wicca or Islam or Hindu beliefs or the belief that the Grand Canyon is the ruler of the Universe put equally into government. Most want Christianity because most people in the country are Christian and most of those pushing for mixing government and religion on any level are advocates or repeating what they heard in churches that advocate a "Christian Nation."

Now, do I believe most people who answered yes to putting more government want a Iranian style theocracy? No, I doubt they even now what a theocracy is. I do think that those same people would care if we did outlaw certain religious beliefs or mandated certain religious practices in the country, like saying oaths where one pledges allegiance to a Christian "God."

I don't honestly fear we are going to end up like Iran. I think their enough people out there who like porn, beer, swearing, and watching football on Sundays to keep freedom alive. What I do fear is a continuation of a society where atheists are often considered either communists or devil worshipers, therefore considered subhuman or outright criminal. This idea is manifest mostly plainly in the fact that no openly atheist person could be elected to any significant public office in the country.

There are many groups that make me fear theocracy. I think if one reads some of their beliefs you might share my fears. One of biggest and most troublesome is that of the Texas Republican Party. Their 2002 party platform (pdf) is filled with the following gems:

We believe that human life is sacred because each person is created in the image of God, that life begins at the moment of conception and ends at the point of natural death, and that all innocent human life must be protected.

[...]

“God Bless Texas!”

[...]

Christian Nation – The Republican Party of Texas reaffirms the United States of America is a Christian nation,
which was founded on fundamental Judeo-Christian principles based on the Holy Bible. We also affirm the right of each individual to worship in the religion of his or her choice.
Religion – The Party acknowledges that the church is a God–ordained institution with a sphere of authority separate from that of civil government; thus, churches, synagogues and other places of worship, including home Bible study groups, should not be regulated, controlled, or taxed by any level of civil government, including the Social Security Administration and the Internal Revenue Service. We reclaim freedom of religious expression in public on government property, and freedom from governmental interference.


[...]

Free Exercise of Religion – The Party believes all Americans have the right to practice their religious faith free of persecution, intimidation, and violence. We call on Congress to sanction any country that is guilty of persecuting its citizens because of their religious beliefs. Our Party pledges to do everything within its power to restore the original intent of the First Amendment of the United States and dispel the myth of the separation of Church and State. We support the right of individuals and state and local governments to display the Ten Commandments on public property subject to their control.

Now, with ideas like these in the state platform of the Home State of sitting President, you really my fears are totally unfounded? The GOP leadership in Texas is advocating a theocracy. It is one where as long as you accept that the majority religion is the real one, you can do as you want, with the understanding that you will be social outcasts left out of society. They won't kill you for being atheist, but life would be easier if you just complied with the majority and accepted the state religion. That is not Iran, but is "starting to sound" like it.

Matt Maupin Held Hostage in Iraq

Information on Army Reservist and now Hostage can be found at WCPO, Post, Enquirer, WLWT.

I hope the national press can leave the family alone and not stake out his house, but if you were to drive over there, which I do NOT sugguest you actually do, you would likely find national journalists holding vigil. I wonder if they are all staying at the Holiday Inn at Eastgate.

More Red Herrings, More Hypocrisy, Just a Typical Day for Peter Bronson

I should have seen this coming from Bronson. Who else but Peter Bronson would seize upon a chance to blame Bill Clinton for something? It would be refreshing if one Republican would take responsibility for something, instead of blaming someone else for not doing what they could have done.

Bronson needs to rethink what he is saying. He claims the media is not covering the story he wants to hear. Well, guess what Peter, the media is covering it. You are writing about it, and if you listen to talk radio or watch FOX News, that is about all you heard about during the 9/11 hearings. What is funny here is that Peter blames the Media for doing the bidding of the Democrats and he does that by quoting local Republican Congressmen. Peter, did you get their press releases by fax or email? Classic hypocrisy there Pete. Do what I say, not what I do?

Bronson’s attempt to tar Gorelick, pronounced "gor-ell-ick", not "Gore Lick” which is what I hope Bronson was not joking about in his opening, is a classic red herring ploy. She is getting death threats by the way, likely from talk radio type cranks. Everything in politics these days is a red herring ploy, but this is a bit different. Critics have had going on 2 years to bring this up. Ashcroft had the knowledge, as did Bush and his leadership, that Gorelick wrote the memo getting people like Bronson in such a tizzy. WHY didn’t Ashcroft object to her being appointed in the beginning? If she had such a damning conflict of interest, why not mention that before they started things off? Gee, you don’t think he withheld the information and selectively declassify it just so he could gain politically? No, that is just not possible. He would not wait months to do that, just to make a DRAMTIC statement in the hearings, our honest AG is not that shallow is he? When I hear him criticized by Bill Frist, maybe that would support his honesty, until then, we can all bank on the game of blame being the GOP’s only play.


Most laughable from the column is this from Rob Portman:

'What Bush did in eight months was more aggressive than what Clinton did in eight years,'' Portman said.

Mr. Portman, my congressman by the way, what the hell did Bush do during those eight months? Some details? Anything? If he really did more in 8 months than Clinton did in 8 years, why could he not prevent 9/11? Clinton's team prevented LAX from being bombed during the Millennium celebration. I mean, if Bush such a stud, he surely would have done that in 8 months? Right? Oh, sorry, I forgot he had Iraq on his mind.

Silence?

Ok, everyone who reads my blog knows I am a very big supporter of gay rights, but I find this kind of protest to be not very productive. It could be viewed as something of a joke. I respect the person trying to do something for gay rights, but I really think the group that started this "Day of Silence, a national youth movement protesting the silence faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and their allies," should rethink it. It might work in High Schools or younger, where gays are subject to more pier oppression than college, where at most colleges acceptance is becoming more standard practice.

Clooney's Cash

Nick Clooney has set a record in fundraising for the House district in Kentucky he is trying to win. He is well positioned to win. Will he? The last polls I read about had him up significantly. I think he name might just keep that seat for the Dems.

College Voters

I tend to think that college kids are not any more informed, as a whole, than the general public. This article reports a lot of sides of who might get most of the college kids votes, but it seems to say little but what activists say, or at least what conservative activists say. Quoting a poll and then asking the president of the UC College Republicans is hardly a comparison worth much in the analysis of college voter. Why did this reporter not get a UC Democrat quote?

I was most concerned about this point from the poll:

• Liberal and conservative labels don't apply as much anymore, and the students don't like to be seen as Democratic or Republican. The poll identified two key groups: religious centrists, who believe religion should play a larger role in government and are concerned with the nation's moral direction; and secular centrists, who are more libertarian.

I added the bolding. What kind of person actually wants religion to play a larger role in government? A theocrat maybe? Where do kids get that kind of idea from? I guess from certain Religious Sects that advocate or are working towards a theocracy. What country do sound more and more like? We are starting to sound like Iran.

Question for Smitherman

Under the First Amendment can a student shout racial slurs at a public school teacher, and face no suspension from class? Council has passed a rule booting anyone who disrupt council meetings for 60 days. From the article:

Charterite Christopher Smitherman voted against the measure, saying the rule violates the free speech rights of people who petition City Council.

Bronson writes and quotes Smitherman in his column today, painting Smitherman's apologist views fairly plainly:

But City Council came through. Everyone voted yes except Chris Smitherman. He seems to think cops who are even accused of using the N-word five years ago should be fired - with a real torch - but people who shout and scream it at council meetings just don't get enough respect.

"We can't arbitrarily say what is disruptive and what's not," he argued, drawing disruptive applause (an almost certain indication that you're on the wrong side of an issue at City Hall). "What policies do we put forward that bring this kind of thing on?" he asked. "We must hear the voice of the people."

Smitherman I guess thinks that '400 years of oppression' makes it OK for a bunch of black racists to shout the "N-word" or the "K-word" at council members.

Bronson is actually right on this point. Smitherman is gutless. He fears taking on the black racists in town. He wants to bring the city together, but he doesn't want to stamp out all the racism. White racism is bad, but black racism must be the fault of white people. It would not surprise me to find out that Damon Lynch would have taken a better stand against black racists if he was on council.