Jesus save me from my fellow believers

One of our weekly newspapers did a great article on Evangelical Christian's plans for "Taking Back America". Muslims don't have a monopoly on extremists. We've got quite a few in my own religion & they are quite powerful & persuasive (so was Hitler). Even as a Christian I have a problem with the extremists wanting to put God back in our Government. After all, our founding fathers separated Church & state for a reason. They'd seen the problems it caused in England (Catholics vs. protestants) & other European countries. Those who don't remember history are doomed to repeat the past. The rest of us just have to survive it.

Here are some excerpts from a recent edition of the Portland Mercury:
...
It seemed like a great idea—crash the second annual Restore America conference in Tualatin and get a peek at evangelicals' plans for "taking back America." So on Friday, February 23, I drove down to the appropriately named Rolling Hills Community Church, nestled in the hills southwest of Portland just past an intersection called "Wanker's Corner."

....

Restore America was founded in 1999 by David Crowe, with the sole intention of getting evangelical Christians to become more involved in civic affairs—like voting. Much like the American evangelical movement as a whole, the organization has relied on two arguments: that America's Founding Fathers meant for the country to be officially Christian, and that modern Christianity is "under attack!"

This second point is repeated throughout the entire conference, with a host of assailants getting the credit for doing the devil's work—activist judges, secular humanists, Hollywood, homosexuals, and Muslims. This paranoia comes despite the fact that evangelicals were—until last November—in control of every branch of government, and reportedly make up the largest voting block in the country. But when you believe in a religion that places high value on martyrdom, you'll start seeing persecution lurking around every corner. I asked Crowe about this, and why evangelicals think that anyone who disagrees with them politically is attacking their religion.

"Isn't it possible that people can disagree with you without it being a persecution of Christians?" I asked.

"Oh, no. Christianity is definitely under attack," Crowe responded.

....

On the first day of Restore America, I was treated to a "press conference," which was essentially a series of mini-sermons by all of the event's speakers. ... After an hour of these sermons—through which I learned that tyrannical judges and gays want to outlaw Christianity, and that Iran must be bombed now...

My second day near Wanker's Corner, though, was more exciting. I learned that the two traits that bind all evangelicals together are the ability to communicate entirely in non sequiturs, and to believe in ideas that are completely contradictory. Contradiction: Evangelicals don't want "theocracy," but they want every aspect of government controlled by the Bible. Contradiction: They believe that Islam is pure evil and a threat to the country, but radical Islam's social policies (anti-gay, anti-woman) are pretty much identical to Christianity's.

But here's the most entertaining contradiction: Even though much of the conference's rhetoric is steeped in words like "freedom" and "liberty," their agenda is entirely composed of taking freedoms away from you and I. In a lengthy interview, Crowe told me about an "Evangelical Contract with America" he's working on. Here's what's on that list: criminalizing abortion, ending no-fault divorce, preemptively banning same-sex marriage and civil unions, forcing judges to abide by a narrow interpretation of the Constitution, doing away with "the plague of porn that is infesting the nation," and keeping illegal immigrants out of America's borders. There's not exactly a lot of "freedom" on the list.

...

I'd expected to go head to head with "Hutch" on his views and horrifyingly misplaced morality, but I quickly discovered that it's impossible to debate someone whose hatred for reason is second only to his hatred of monogamous homosexuality. When I asked him why he believes that civil unions—or any level of benefits between same-sex couples—would undermine straight marriage, he presented a non sequitur of the highest order: "Would you still do your job if you weren't getting paid?" I blinked, not following the analogy. After some follow-up questions, I still had no idea what he was talking about, and got the sense that even through his manufactured confidence, neither did Hutcherson. There is no intellectually honest way anyone—even an evangelical Christian—can argue that expanding marriage benefits to committed same-sex couples in any way damages marriage for others.

But none of that matters.

"If I get more votes than you, I win," Hutcherson offered—one of the few arguments he made that I could follow. "If I get more votes, you have to do what I say. But if you get more votes, I have to do what you say. It's that simple."

Throughout the conference, I kept looking around, hoping to spot someone—anyone—expressing the same level of intellectual insult I was feeling, but to no avail. Instead, I saw hundreds of heads nodding along to messages of delusional paranoia, homophobia, and anti-intellectualism. And that's the most frightening element of it all—evangelical leaders have a built-in army of followers who are accustomed to doing what they're told and not asking any questions.

Why is it that so many Christians blindly follow? Wasn't Jesus considered a "Radical" in his time? He asked questions! We as Christians have a duty to use the brains God gave us to question. Many Christian leaders have been tempted by the 7 Deadly Sins & failed.

Faith in God; Not Government!

"Bong Hits for Jesus"

Free Speech news: High Court Takes "Bong Hits 4 Jesus"

My comments are in italic.

WASHINGTON -- When Joseph Frederick unveiled a banner in 2002 on a public sidewalk in a Juneau, Alaska, Olympic parade that read "bong hits 4 Jesus," he probably didn't think his self-proclaimed prank would land him in the Supreme Court.

But that's where his case was heard on Monday, in a lively argument over free speech rights.

Frederick has said the banner's language was meant to be meaningless and funny effort to get on television as the Winter Olympic torch relay passed by his high school in January 2002.

His principal, Deborah Morse, believed the banner advocated or promoted illegal drug use in violation of school policy. She grabbed the banner and crumpled it. Then she suspended Frederick for 10 days.

Frederick sued, with the help of lawyer Douglas Mertz, of Juneau, and the American Civil Liberties Union. In subsequent court cases, the school has argued that it has a right to squelch speech that promotes illegal behavior and runs afoul of school policy.

Now, following a line of reasoning familiar to first amendment advocates, lawyers for conservative Christian groups said they found the content of Frederick's speech objectionable, but they want to defend his right to free speech because they want to be sure their own speech is protected.
{WOW! This is impressive. This is exactly the problem with limiting speech and I'm happy that there are Christians who understand this. I think of the poem written by a German priest during WWII: They Came for the Jews & I didn't speak up...They came for me & there was no one left to speak.)

Frederick's banner was disrespectful to God and disrespectful to believers of Christianity , Kevin Theriot, an attorney for Alliance Defense Fund, told the Web site Beliefnet. Even so, ADF, the American Center for Law and Justice, the Liberty Legal Institute and the Christian Legal Society have all filed briefs defending the student.
{Why is this disrespectful to God? He is the creator of all things. I'm a Christian & this doesn't bother me. I think God has a sense of humor.}

The government's position would give schools the authority to regulate all unpopular, controversial speech, according to ACLJ's Jay Sekulow. His organization was founded founded by Christian broadcaster Pat Robertson.
{YIKES! This could get confusing. Who's to say what is unpopular or controversial speech? Typically unpopular or controversial speech is politically charged. And it changes over time. }

Justice Stephen Breyer, addressing Mertz, said he is struggling with the case because a ruling in Frederick's favor could encourage students to go to absurd lengths to test those limits.

A ruling for Morse, however, "may really limit free speech," Breyer said.

Chief Justice John Roberts suggested that schools should be allowed to teach "character formation and not to use drugs." But Justice David Souter said the banner's message sounded "like just a kid's provocative statement" to him.
{NO - It is a parent's job to teach character formation & to talk to their kids about not using drugs! I don't believe in doing drugs (except for alcohol, which is a LEGAL "DRUG", ahem) & it is not because of school. My parents were good role models and had high expectations and trust for me. My parents are also the reason that I love to read because they read to me and encouraged learning. Parents must be involved in the child's education & growth. That's not to say school shouldn't do some, for instance, health is a good place to talk about the dangers of drugs & sex; characther building might including punishment for cheating or violence at school, etc. And I agree with Justice Souter...sounds like the kid is a TEENAGER. Who hasn't said provocative or tested the limits?}

The Bush administration has backed the school board. And Kenneth Starr, the former special prosecutor who investigated ex-President Bill Clinton over the Whitewater land deal and the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal, is arguing on behalf of the principal and the school board.
{Big surprise here. Kenneth Starr. Need I say more? Except I can't resist calling him a media whore. ; >}

“The Supreme Court famously said that students do not shed their rights at the schoolhouse gate and that is the principle we are still fighting for 40 years later," ACLU National Legal Director Steven R. Shapiro said on Monday.

The most recent and famous court decision in the matter of free speech for students came in 1969, when teenage siblings John and Mary Beth Tinker won the right to protest the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands in school.

Mary Beth Tinker, 54, traveled to Washington to hear the arguments before the Court."For decades the law has been that students have the constitutional right to free speech even on school campuses,” Mertz said.

Stuck being political again

I never paid that much attention to the Dixie Chicks; I just knew that my dad liked them. At least he did until a comment made during a 2003 concert.

During the run-up to this endless war, The Dixie Chicks said, "We are ashamed that George Bush is from Texas." The fact that bushy is not from Texas notwithstanding {he was born in New Haven, Connecticut, which makes him a YANKEE in my book}. Conservative country fans, boycotted the band's album & tour, country radio stations stopped playing their music, & Natalie Maines even had a death threat (now that's what I call good Christian values!).

Why did one person saying they are ashamed of the President make them so angry? Why is that unpatriotic? How is that unsupportive of our troops? After all, she didn't mention troops or soldiers or the military in that quote. It's an opinion. So is the belief that corporations deserve rights & handouts. So is the hypothesis that there are Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq; WMD's which have never been found. I feel that Bush is not truly Christian although he believes he is & that neocon's don't actually believe in Christianity, beyond as a tool of power, but hey, that's only my opinion. I personally am ashamed that Resident Bush & Cheney, two soulless, psychopaths are representing our Republic to the rest of the world.

Why I am thinking about the Dixie Chicks you ask? The above rant (gotta get out my anger at the decline of our US Civilization) is leading up to something. And that is the documentary entitled "Dixie Chicks Shut Up & Sing", which details the band's experiences after the infamous comment, which spawned their new album, "Taking the Long Way". After watching this documentary I have so much respect & love for them. I literally turned off the DVD & walked to my neighborhood record store & bought their new record.

It's an excellent documentary & if it interests you, you can probably find it at your local library or video store. Their new record is pretty good too. It's honest & raw.

Peace be with you & me.

"When once a republic is corrupted, there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles; every other correction is either useless or a new evil."
- Thomas Jefferson