We Are All People Of Faith: Why Fundamentalism Does Not Exist

WE ARE ALL PEOPLE OF FAITH:
WHY FUNDAMENTALISM DOES NOT EXIST

By Trevor Alexander MacKenzie
Editted by Brandon Alexander Geraghty-MacKenzie

In recent weeks it seems as if the ultra fundamentalist right has become addicted to the phrase “People of Faith.” As a former pastor and as a recovering religionist it seems to me that the term, while initially intended to describe people who believe in a higher power, has been bastardized by the ultra fundamentalists themselves into an emotional, politically correct buzzword to describe what my son, Brandon, refers to as the Radical Christian Right. In other words, the ultra fundamentalists* are the true believers, the genuine “People of faith,” who have the Truth while everyone else is disciple of the Anti Christ.

To be honest I was a little surprised to see such an innocent term transformed into a rhetorical weapon of hate and chauvinism. But then again, we’re talking about the Radical Christian Right, and if we know anything, it is that this particular constuency is long on tribalism and bigotry, but short on logic, reason, and basic human compassion. They really do believe that they have found The Truth. And in their often totalitarian mindset, they have come to accept the dubious fact that they have embraced a form of Christianity that is so pure, and so perfect, and so in keeping with what Christ himself taught, that they somehow of a right and a duty to impose that form of Christianity on others.

But what the ultra fundamentalist right has yet to understand is the fact that no one can be a fundamentalist, religions invariuably being impure and watered down versions of what the original prophet had to offer. Indeed, when it comes to the subject of religion, no one can be a fundamentalist; not a fundamentalist Christian, not a fundamentalist Jew, not a fundamentalist Muslim, not a fundamentalist anything. Simply stated fundamentalism does not and cannot exist. Moreover it is foolish to argue about which form of Christianity, or Judaism, or Islam, or any other faith is the one and true version because there is no such thing as a one and true faith. Eveyone is a person of faith. Whether he believes in Jehovah, Jesus, Allah, Buddha, Shiva, ancestral spirits, nature, or secular humanism, all people are people of faith. And yet, at the same time, no one is a genuine person of faith.

I realize by now the readers must be scratching their heads and asking themselves a few questions. “How can I be going to worship services once or twice a week and not be a good Christian? How can I pray, read my Bible, and engage in all these wonderful church activities and not be a true believer? How can I be a Catholic, or a Southern Baptist, or a Seventh Day Adventists, or a Pentecostal, or a Methodist, or a Presbyterian, and not be a Person of Faith?

Well, my friends, the answer is really quite simple.

Religions remain pure and true while the founding prophet is alive and able to communicate his message in person to his or her followers. But once the founder passes away, the faith which he or she founded becomes a matter of hearsay and from that moment on exists in a variety of similar and yet entirely different sects. Each will claim that it is following in the path of the prophet’s true intentions, but each will invariably contaminate the original faith and intentions with a myriad of personal and cultural biases. It is foolish to talk about a true version of any faith when, in actuality, there are as many different versions of a particular faith (Christianity included) as there are individual practitioners. All will use the name of the founding prophet to support their beliefs. Each faith, each individual will quote various scriptures and theological treatises to convince the masses that its, his, or her interpretation (or bastardization) is the only acceptable version; but beyond fervent or even deceptive rhetoric, the desires of the founding prophet can never truly be known. New situations, new dilemmas will arise that the founding prophet had never foreseen. New discoveries, revelations, and information will come forth to disprove or alter the founding prophet’s most cherished axioms. And in the end only one truth will be obvious: the founder’s original faith is dead, gone forever, replaced by a series of new theologies which are based on, but not identical to the original belief system.

The idea that any modern religion is in any way true to its original version, is the greatest irony of all. Contemporary Christianity, fundamentalism included, is not the religion of Jesus Christ. It is the religion of Peter and Paul; of the Neo Platonists who infused it with the intellectual and mystical flavor of the ancient Greeks; of the early Church fathers and Roman/Byzantine Emporers who were trying, often in fierce competition with so called heretics, to establish an overall orthodoxy of Christian thought. It is the Christianity of statesmen and theologians who have brought their personal beliefs and ethnic biases to the many versions of the Christian faith. It is the Christianity of countless cultures which have embraced and influenced the teachings of Jesus Christ for more than 2000 years of written and unwritten history. We are talking, after all, about a belief system that has been shaped and molded by numerous debates and councils; Crusades and Holy Wars, Inquisitions and Witch Hunts; Renaissance movements and Reformations; scientific advancements and Enlightenments.

Christianity? Would it not me more acceptable to talk about a multitude Christianities instead of a single, monolithic institution? Of course it would.

Defenders of the status quo—or more precisely, those who wish to impose their “true” beliefs on others, will invariably claim that the intentions of the founding prophet can be discerned through holy texts and religious treatises, but such documents only takes the debate to a written level. Again, there are as many different interpretations of the written texts as there are individual readers. And, yet again, the founding prophet, Jesus in the case of Christianity, is not present to explain to the theologians exactly what he meant when he or she said X, Y, or Z.

Take for example the Orthodox teaching on the nature of Jesus Christ.

In the New Testament Christ offers little in the way of explanation as to how he can be both divine and human at the same time. Indeed, he seems to be rather schizophrenic on the topic. During the course of his ministry, when he seems to be intent upon gaining a substantial following, he openly flaunts his divinity: driving out devil’s, healing the sick, feeding thousands from limited resources, ad infinitum. But when his teachings finally collide with the religious and political Powers That Be of the Roman Empire, he becomes a bit more hesitant when he is asked to offer comments about his divinity. When asked directly by Pilate if he is divine he says either “Thou sayest it” (Luke 23.3 and Mark 15.2) or “Thou sayest.” (Matthew 27.11). Only in John 18.33-36 does he offer a longer response to Pilate’s question, but even there he couches the answer in nebulous, almost legalistic terms, which according to today’s standards, might well read “I refuse to answer on the grounds that it may tend to incriminate me.”

His answers to the High Priests and Elders are somewhat different. In the 18th Chapter of John, we get yet another legalistic answer in which Christ basically tells his accusers to ask witnesses what he has already stated on the subject. In the 26th Chapter of Matthew he resorts to the kind of legalistic jargon that he will later use on Pilate, but then adds “nevertheless I say unto you, hereafter ye shall see the son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming on the clouds of Heaven. In the 22nd Chapter of Luke he issues a similar statement: “Hereafter shall the Son of Man sit on the right hand of the Power of God.” And in the 26th Chapter of Matthew he tells us: “I say unto you, hereafter ye shall see the son of man sitting on the right hand of Power and coming in the Clouds of Heaven.”

The ultra fundamentalists will invariably say that the Gospels are in harmony, but that clearly isn’t true. When confronted by the Jewish religious establishment of his time, Christ offers basically the same response in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, but a second and more legalistic response in John. Moreover, his response in Matthew, Mark, and Luke is compromised when he later confronts Pontius Pilate. Only in John do the answers to the Jewish religious extablishment agree with what he later tells Pilate: and in that case he is engaging in a legalistic cat and mouse game so as to avoid torture and execution, not specifically claiming that he is divine.

Nor is this the only area in which the Bible self-contradicts itself. Throughout the Bible there are many examples of God’s love and compassion for humankind. But for every example of God’s love and compassion there is another example of God’s tyranny and barbarism. In one passage he tells the ancient Hebrews not to kill, not to commit murder. A few chapters later he tells them to commit war crimes against their neighboring tribes. One moment he sounds like a gentle, loving father; a few pages later he rants and raves like an obsessive, jealous lover. (One thing you have to say about the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition--seldom has there been such a human-acting God!)

And the contradictions continue well into the New Testament. We all familiar with Christ’s gentleness with and compassion for children; how he fed the poor, comforted the sick, and spoke incessantly about loving God and neighbor; about turning the other cheek and forgiving past wrongs. But there are also passages in which Jesus comes off as petty and as self-absorbed as a spoiled 11-year-old. Consider Mark 14.7: “For he have the poor with you always and when-so-ever ye while ye may do them good, but me ye have not always.” And then there’s that little matter of Matthew 10.34-38, when Jesus seems to spit in the proverbial faces of the contemporary “family values” crowd: “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth. I come not to send peace but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a man’s foe shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross and followeth me, is not worthy of me.”

So what does this have to do with the nature of Christ and the validity of sacred text? As I suggested before, the New Testament offers little information on which to draw a conclusion. Jesus did offer a few oblique comments about his human and divine natures, but he never come right out and said how the two natures exist or coexist in a single entity. One would have thought that if he were indeed divine, if he were in fact the Son of God, that he would have had an inner track to this kind of information, that he would have shared that information with his many followers. But for reasons we do not fully understand, he never shares that information. He never came right out and said that he was both, truly God and truly man. He never explained that the two natures are in perfect unity without division, confusion, or separation. Nor do Saint Paul and the Apostles offer detailed explanations either. Instead that particular secret was left undecided for hundreds of years while the quasi Christians in subsequent centuries argued and haggled over the often nebulous meanings of key scriptural phrases, debating and agonizing over the issue until such time as a “rational solution could be concocted at the First Council of Nicea.
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism for additional details ab out the Arian heresy .) And to make the matter even more complicated, the Church had to convene yet another Council, The Council of Chalcedon, in 451 AD to further refine the issue. (Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monophysite for more information on the Monophysites.)

In a similar vein, the early church experienced differences of opinion over everything from icons, to the nature of the Papacy , to the relationship between Rome and the Eastern Church, to the power balance between church and state. And through it all the various factions found increasingly innovative ways to use Holy Scripture and theological treatises to support their conflicting stands on the issues.

And why wouldn’t they? In a work as long and as complicated as the Holy Bible, self-contradictions are a given. Now add to that the human proclivity for interpreting information as the individual sees fit, and you are guaranteed a confused mish mash of ideas and theologies. Is it any wonder that the early church fathers had a difficult time determining which books should be canonical (e.g. there were major debates over the book of Revelations). Should we be surprised by the fact that Catholics and Protestants use different versions of the Bible? Catholic Bibles, after all, include a number of apocryphal books or sections of books, in the Old Testament, which are not considered canonical by most Protestants (although I must confess, I have always liked “Tobit” and, my personal favorite, “Susannah and the Elders,” ). Undoubtedly, the fundamentalists would claim that the basic message remains the same regardless of Biblical versions, but that doesn’t change the fact that the Bible, in fundamentalist thought, is supposed to be the literal word of God. And if it is the literal word of God, as they claim, then we should be asking ourselves why different versions of the Bible exist at all if God’s word is definitive.

The answer, again, is obvious. Jesus, the founding prophet, is no longer here to offer his personal advice on the matter. The Bible self contradicts. The theologians offer conflicting opinions on important matters of doctrine, practice, and faith, resulting in as many interpretations of the written texts as there are individuals who are reading it. Meanwhile, the ultra fundamentalist Protestants have lost sight of the fact that the Reformation—a watershed event without which they could not even exist—created an opportunity for the individual to interpret the Bible as he or she sees fit. A fact which Radical Right Wing Christians “conveniently” forget as they attempt to impose their pseudo literal interpretation of the King James Bible on a nation of more than 280 million people and more than 2000 different faiths.

In closing I would like to suggest that the term “People of Faith is just another in a long line of underhanded tactics which have been designed to denigrate mainstream Christians, non-Christians, and nonbelievers alike as somehow subhuman or undeserving of civil liberties. And the ultimate irony is that the accusation is coming in the form of a rhetorical secret handshake from self-claimed fundamentalists who are intellectually unable to recognize the fact that fundamentalism is itself a myth. They are no more in tune with the wishes and desires of Jesus, their founding prophet than anyone else. They may claim that they deity sits up and night to admire them, but the only truth in religion is that the original version of a given faith dies when the founding prophet dies. And no act of political, rhetorical, or sociological necromancy will bring the prophet and the original faith back to life.




*Regarding the word"fundamentalist," I would like to share what my friend, Jeff told me to do a few years ago, regarding an alternative definition of the word itself Get a copy of a good dictionary. I’ve always been impartial to the various editions of Merriam Webster’s Collegiate, but that’s a personal choice. In any event look up the root words f the word fundamentalist:

Fundament\n [Middle English from old French from the Latin fundamentum, from fundare to found, from fundus] (13c) 1. and underlaying ground, theory, or principle. 2.. a: BUTTOCKS b. anus 3. the part of the land surface that has not been altered by human activities.

Mental\adjective [Middle English from Middle French from Late latin mentalis from Latin ment, mens mind—more at mind] (15c) 1 a: of or relating to the total emotional and intellectual response of an individual to external reality b: of or relating to intellectual as contrasted to emotional activity c: of, relating to, or being intellectual as contrasted with overt physical activity d: occurring or experienced in the mind: INNER e: relating to the mind in its activity, or its products as an object of study: (IDEALOGICAL f: relating to the spirit or idea as opposed to matter 2 a: (1) of, relating to, or affected by a psychiatric disorder (2): mentally disordered: MAD, CRAZY b: intended for the care or treatment of persons affected by psychiatric disorders 3: of or relating to telepathic or mind reading powers.

Put the two together and you can create some truly non traditional, but highly accurate descriptions of the fundamentalist right, my favorites of which are: “butt thinkers,” “ass thinkers,” and, my absolute favorite, “CRAZY ass thinkers.”

If You Thought Robertson and Dobson Were Nuts, Meet Ted Haggard and the New Life Church

If you think James Dobson and Pat Robertson are bad then let me tell you about Ted Haggard and the New Life Church!

For all intents and purposes Ted Haggard and James Dobson are engaged in an evangelical game of "good cop/bad cap," with James Dobson of Focus on the Family playing the proverbial bad cop, while Haggard, with his smooth style, and deceptively friendly, utgoing personality plays the part of the proverbial good cop.

For those of you who aren't familiar with the New Life Church (and you’ve been blessed by God if you haven’t!) , it's an 11,000 member strong megachurch in Colorado Springs, where bigotry and dreams of a Christian utopia on earth reign supreme. . It began in 1984 when Haggard was driving through the area, stopped his car, and had a vision in which he saw himself turning Colorado Springs into another New Jerusalem, a utopian society based on Christian (i.e. theocratic) values.

Initlally little more than 20 members meeting in a basement, the movement grew quickly through truly fascinating (read disturbing) tactics. This is a church that created its own propaganda by forming prayer vigils outside the homes of gays, lesbians, and wicans with the expressed purpose of forcing them to move. And the frightening thing is that it worked. After identifying and targeting 15 homes as being occupied by Wicans (witches, as Haggard calls them) 10 out of the homes were abandonned simply because the residents could no longer take the constant praying –or, if you will, preying. I believe in the real world we might be more inclined to call this harassment.

The thing which few people want to talk about is the fact that institutions like the New Life Church, Focus on the Family, The Christian Coalition, and the National Asociation of Evangelicals all see prayer less as a means of glorifying and worshipping God, but rather as a spiritual weapon in a culture war. To be succinct, they view prayer as a means by which to destroy their enemies. In sharp contrast with Mainstream Christianity, the New Life Church openly admits that it is not a Social Gospel Church. It is more interested in converting people than it is in operating soup kitchens or building projects for the homeless. Of course you need to remember that Haggard thinks that Jesus would have embraced free markets--this inspite of the fact that while Jesus walked the face of the earth he and the Twelve Apostles lived communally--sharing everything and owning very little. And it makes me wonder: Shouldn’t someone should tell these Bible-bastardizing buffoons that Christ never bothered to accumulate personal wealth during his earthly ministry? Why it’s enough to make you wonder if we shouldn't require our clergy to take oaths of poverty Of course you have to remember that depriving people of their civil liberties and demonizing them Desciples of Satan comes with a heft price tag. So I can understand why they would spell the name of the Savior as JE$U$ CHRI$T. In short, Haggard and the New Life Church are more interested in controlling what people do in the privacy of their own homes--banning premarital sex and homsexuality--than ity is in feeding, clothing, and sheltering poor hungry children. Yup. I'm sure Jesus would be REAL proud of that.

In addition this church, like so much of modern fundamentalism, has a highly militant streak to it. Even their rhetoric has overtones of violenceand destruction, incorprating assinine phrases such as "exploding the Gospel for Christ," or openly admitting, and even admiring the "fact" that The Bible is a violent, bloody book, while ignoring the parts which emphasize peace, forgiveness, and loving ones neighbors. Worse yet, the praise the fact that certain American GIs have disturbuted 900,000 Bibles in Iraq at a time when the President is trying to tell the Muslim World that our invasion of Iraq is not a crusade.

Like most fundamentalist organizations the New Life Church depends on pageantry and symbolism, but in this particular case the symbolism has become truly bizarre, indeed, overtly sexual. Visitors to the church will discover a large statue called "The Defender.” This is a monster piece of “art,” a deformed monstrosity in the form of a muscular angel, its face locked in an angry, defiant expression while the angel itself swings an actual sword, a broadside at unseen foes. . And then there's a painting, "The Vessel," which featuures realistic, large breasted, white angels pouring an earn of honey over a muscular, bronze-skinned naked man who is collecting the honey in a bowl before his crotch. The idea here of course, is that this is God's love pouring down from Heaven to mankind, but the images are so starkly homoerotic that you really need to wonder if this church hasn't obsessed over the idea of homosexuality in particular and over sex in general. Or for that matter if there aren't a few unresolved latent urges here--if you get my drift. There is, afterall, a theory tht says the most visceral of homophobes are actually trying to deny their own inner impulses by persecuting others with smilar behaviors and characteristics. But it’s just a theory.

Hypocrist not withstanding, we are after all, talking about a group that wants to roll back protection for gays, lesbians, and nonchristians. Indeed, their persecution (there just isn't another way to say it) of Wicans proves conclusssively that they have no respect for freedom of religion either. Any group that would attempt to drive someone out of his or her home based on a literal interpretation of the Bible would almost certainly perform a repeat of Kristallnacht if they ever given the opportunity.

So just why in the hell are people like Haggard so dangerous?

In a representative democracy like America you’d think that their delusional world view would be enough to mark them as the phony Christians and real life fascists that they are. Well, my pets, life is never that simple. Would that it were. Clowns like Falwell, Robinson, and even Dobson, are oafs. They couldn't make an eloquent statement if they tried. And whenever they have tried they have only succeeded in making Osama Bin Laden sound moderate and have ended up offering apollogies to mainstream America. In addition they are just plain nasty. But people like Haggard, on the other hand are reasonably attractive. They know which face to wear when they deal with the public--and it isn't the one with the proverbial 666 on the forehead. They know how to couch their visceral hatred for Jews, Gays, Lesbians, Muslims, Hindus, nonchristians and nonfundamentalist ("nomonal") Christians in polite, Orwellian double talk. (Hitler did the same thing while he was running for office—even brutal, hate-mongering psychopaths know how to “behave themselves” when doing so will promote their otherwise sociopathic agenda.) People like Haggard understand pop culture (think grunge bands and hip hop performances) and they know how to milk the media.

More importantly, Haggard has a direct link to the Whitehouse, talking to President Bush via conference call every Monday morning. This might not be a problem if it weren't for the fact that this administration has all but cut itself off from mainstream Christianity and nonchristians -- a fact which is reflected in funding for faith- based initiatives where the money is being deliberately channeled to right wing Christians, seldom secular or nonchristian groups. When seen in this particular light one must conclude that the left has it right. The present wave of fundamentalism is indeed trying to destroy the United States government by funding a shadow, Faith Based government that is intended to superecede the Republic of our Founding Fathers.
And they don't even need to do it through Faith Based Initiatives. The New Life Church can collect up to $200,000 per sermon. Mainstream Christians who still comprise a majority of the religionists in the country, are lucky if they can collect $200,000 for a national effort, much less per sermon.

Luckily a majority of Americans still have a softer and gentler view of Jesus Christ and of religion overall, but that doesn't mean that we can sit on our asses and do nothing while these delusional theocrats work to create a Fascist Christian State. I for one believe it is time for the IMMORAL MAJORITY to stand up and take back its rights. We've given these societal perfectionists enough power as it is. We have to get organized, my pets. We need to send these would be dictators and theocrats back to the Dark Ages that they came from.

Ciao

Daniel

(For more on the extreme nature of modern day fundamentalists, please be so kind as to scroll down to Brandon's excellent post about The Radical Christian Right, and then proceed to Sam's equally enlightening piece about the "Reverend" Pat Robertson.)

THE RADICAL CHRISTIAN RIGHT: THEY SHALL BEAT THEIR CROSSES INTO SWASTIKAS AND THEIR PLOUGHSHARES INTO SCIMIATARS

THE RADICAL CHRISTIAN NIGHT:
AND THEY HAVE BEATEN THEIR CROSSES INTO SWASTIKAS AND THEIR PLOUGHSHARES INTO SCIMITARS

By Brandon



"For such are false apostles, decietful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light." 2 Corinthians 11: 13-14 (King James Edition)


What will it take for the spineless left in this country to recognize the fact that it isn't only allowable, but necessary to speak out against hate, bigotry, and fanaticism? Why do so-called liberal Democrats not understand that being intolerant of intolerance itself is a good thing, an honrable American value, not something to be ashamed of or frightened by? When will the American people stop deceiving themselves and recognize the present wave of right-wing fundamentalism for the traitorous fifth column that it actually is?

After watching Justice Sunday, (a travesty of decency which, in the name of honesty, should have been called “Fascist Sinday”), I am again perplexed by the attitudes of my fellow liberals, Democrats and other wise. For some baffling reason or reasons, there are actually people on the left who believe that they can extend a compromising hand to the Radical Christian Right in the hope that they might be able to extract a few votes from what, for all intents and purposes, is a neo-fascist movement with the name of Jesus Christ attached to it for the sake of public consumption. John Edwards talks about the meaning of and importance of his church in his personal life; Hilary Clinton delivers political speeches which sound as if they were lifted from a Sunday morning sermon; John Kerry, at the end of the 2004 election, informed is that he had morals and that he often prayed. It’s almost as if these normally astute politicians genuinely believe that the Radical Christian Right is actually interested in, or is somehow capable of compromise.

It seems to me that liberals, Democrats in particular, simply do not understand the nature of the beast with which they are dealing. They either cannot or will not accept the fact the Radical Christian Right is the greatest threat to American Democracy since the rise of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party in the 1920s and 1930s. In the past the evangelical community was content to warn us about the dangers of secularism, and their rhetoric, while occasionally bucolic, tended to center itself around the joys and benefits of a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and the bliss that could be found in salvation. But the type of fundamentalism that we see today is nothing like the fundamentalism that we saw prior to the late 1970s.

Beginning in the early 1980’s we saw a new breed of fundamentalism, and wasn’t the conservative, Bible-based faith of our fathers and grandfathers. Unlike previous generations, the new and improved fundamentalists were no longer content to wait for the Second Coming. They actually believed that they could create the Kingdom of God here on earth before Christ made his reappearance. In other words, we are dealing with a group of people who truly believe that they have been selected by God, and who consequently believe that anyone and everyone who refuses to accept their very narrow interpretation of the King James Bible is a part of a Satanic plot.

And if you think that’s bad, just hold on, because it’s about to get a hell of a lot worse.

These people quite literally believe that they have been chosen to prepare the way for Christ. In their warped theology, they have a sacred duty to transform America into, a Christian Republic, a Global American Empire which will spread their decadent, hate-filled Gospel across the face of the earth. This became all too aparent in the days after George W. Bush was elected as President in the year 2000, when Pat Robertson resigned as the head of the Christian Coalition and changed the name of his university to the Regent University.

By now you may well be asking, “So what has that got to do with anything? How does this affect my every day life?" The answers are both complicated and yet obvious.

Radical Right Wing Christians genuinely believe that they should be training a Christian cadre that will eventually rule a Christian Republic here at home, and quite possibly, an American Christian Empire abroad. They truly believe that we are approaching the End of Days and that America will be dominated by a series of twelve Regents who will rule the earth (or at least the United States) until such time as Christ decides to make his last and most impressive appearance.

And now for the weird part: Some poor, deluded souls actually believe that George W. Bush is the first of these so called Regents.

So what’s the problem? Why does this movement represent such a threat?

Think about it.

This wild-eyed pack of self-appointed moralists has come to believe that they have been selected by God and that everyone else is a servant of the Anti-Christ. When you strip away the religious rhetoric you find an intensely paranoid and hate-filled movement which is essentially fascist in its world view and overall attitude towards dissidents in general. In many ways the present group of Millenialists or Dominionists or whatever else you choose to call them, are a direct outgrowth of right wing extremist groups such as the old Anti-Communist League, the John Birch Society, and the Ku Klux Klan, the last of which had chaplains for each of its local chapters. Not surprisingly, the ultimate goal is to create a parallel government which will gradually strangle out the government that was established by the Founding Fathers in 1787. To that end we see "Faith-Based Initiatives," which, for all intents and purposes, are designed to replace everything from state and federal social services, to public education, to the very legal system which protects the rights of both the religious majority and the religious minority. Often touted as a sincere effort to “help people,” faith –based initiatives are, in fact, designed first and foremost to weaken the power of the federal and state governments. Indeed, we already have an alternate media in the form of Christian Broadcasting which effectively issolates the every day "Christian" follower from the debate that is taking place within the corporate-owned mainstream press. In other words, they can see and listen to what ever lies and propaganda the Spin Masters on the (Radical Christian) Right want to spread as the truth and they won't ever know the difference.

It is no accident that Pat Robertson’s Regent University is operating both, law and journalism schools for future Christian leaders in a proverbial Christian Reich. Moreover, the intense effort by Carl Rove and his merry band of Bible-thumping fanatics to dismantle church-state separation and to smear any and all nonbelivers as unpatriotic, antichristian, or unamerican, is not an accident either, The Domionists, really do have a chilling overall objective, which, as I stated earlier, is to overtthrow the present government and to replace the Constitution with a Creationism, Social Dawrwinism, and a literal interpretation of the King James Bible.

In short, when you peal away the phony religious rhetoric, you end up with nothing less than good old fashioned totalitarianism; the same kind that this country went to war against in World War II. The only difference, is that American Fascists, instead of wearing swastikas and SS uniforms, are now wearing crosses and every day street clothing. And the "good" news is that their only enemies are: Jews; Muslims; human secularists; gays, lesbians, agnostics, atheists; “nominal,” mainstream Christians, and just about anyone else who is either brave or foolish enough to cross their theocratic path. And when you're dealing with a totalitarian mindset like that, discussion, debate, and compromise become the theo-political equivalents of heresey. That's an awefully dangerous belief in a representative Republic such as the United States, because American government was founded on compromise and continues to function on compromise.

In many ways the idea that we need to establish a Reich-Wing Regency while we wait for Christ to return, is a disturbing blend of both, fascism and communism. As some of you may recall, certain Marxist theories actually maintained that a given nation would have to go through a period of dictatorship before the proverbial workers paradise could be achieved here on earth. Now flash forward to the year 2005. Today we have the Radical Christian Right telling us that we'll have to go through a divinely-inspired, dictatorship before Christ will come back to establish his Kingdom. You have to give the Radical Christian Right credit--only they could embrace the worst aspects of both, fascism and communism. Which makes me wonder: Doesn't their delusional dream for the future sound more like the reign of The Anti-Christ than the reign of anything even remotely divine?

I didn’t think it was possible, but on Fascist Sinday, every loose nut, pseudo patriot, and Apostate from Hell was given the freedom to rant and rave (often hysterically) about individuals or groups that he or she had chosen to single out for unsrestrained hatred. Historically speaking this is how fascist mvements operate. They exploit our fears; play on our emotions through pageantry and symbolism. Their time-tested tactics worked for The Duce, Paul Josef Goebbels, and his beloved Fuhrer, and they seem to be working just as well for Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Tony Perkins, and James Dobson as well.

And the thing that "amuses" me to no end, is the fact that these people really do believe that they are Christians. They really do believe that they are doing God's will. Despite the fact that Christ never harmed another living being during his time here and earth; despite his pleas for peace, love, and forgiveness, and turning the other cheek, they really do believe Christ was a warrior. Despite the fact that Jesus Christ refused the temptation of political and temporal power while he walked on earth, the Radical Christian Right craves political, temporal power in the same disgusting manner in which a heroin addict craves the next fix. Despite the fact that Christ himself never hoarded material wealth and often consorted with the poor and repressed the Radical Christian Right truly believes that if you are poor you are somehow not right with God--a belief which stems less from The Bible than from the often bizarre rantings of John Calvin.

It seems to me that the Radical Christian Right, or the Fundamentalists, or the Millenialists, or the Dominionists--or whatever to hell you want to call them--have only succeeded in bastardizing the Deity that they so shallowly claim to love and adore. Through a delusional process of historical revision they have transformed our secular Constitution into a Theocratic blue print. Through outright prevarication they have distorted the King James Bible into a Gospel of Hate. Or to be glib they have beaten their crosses into swastikas and their ploughshares into scimiatars.

And it's about time that we took their demented world view a little more seriously.

"For false Christs and false prophets shall rise, and shall shew signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, even the elect."Mark 13:22 (King James Edition)

THOUGHTS ON THE REVELATION

As long as I'm in between bouts of nausea from this damned chemo therapy I thought I'd exercise my Constitutional right to speak out against ignorance and superstition.

It seems to me that the hate-mongering Millenialists who now control the Republican Party are more in line with Satan than they are with Jesus Christ. Nevermind their truly hateful belief system. That's bad enough. The fact of the matter is that their timing seems to be way off. As does the nature of their movement.

According to the Bible (use whichever version you prefer), Christians are supposed to be a persecuted minority in the end times, not a ubiquitous political faction with the power and the will to actually engage in the actual persecution itself. If we take the present batch of millenialists at their word and accept The Holy Bible as the literal world of God, then the American Christian Right does not fit the description of those who will be saved. But it does fit the description of the misled individuals and false prophets who will run the show during the brief reign of the Anti-Christ here on earth. (Maybe we should ask everyone in the Millenialist/Dominionist movement to undergo a thorough examnation by a qualified dermatologist--just to see if we don't find any 666 birthmarks on their forheads or in the palms of their hands?)

Seriously, the whole idea of Revelations as an accurate blue print for human history and/or destiny has become an obsession with this crowd--and not an especially healthy one at that.

When I was in seminary school I concluded that the Book of Revelations was not written by Saint John. Rather, it was actually written by a hermit-monk named John who lived nearly a hundred years after the fact, and the political entity that he was writing about is not the modern world, but the Roman Empire. The Revelation as a whole was written to Christians of the era to counter what the obsessive, often fanatical, author considered to be some of the nonchristian beliefs that were filtering into the orthodoxy of his day, and, more imporantly, to give persecuted Christians hope during an age of intense brutality and repression. The Roman Empire was not a pacifistic entity to say the least. Christians were routinely persecuted and executed. To take the symbolism intended as spiritual comfort nearly 2000 years ago seriously today is nothing less than redicules.

Moreover, the Bible clearly says that Christ would return to earth soon quickly. Not 2000 years after the fact. One of the reasons that it took so long for the Gospels and the New Testament in general to be written down was because the early Christians genuinely believed that Christ would return in their life times or at least shortly thereafter. They certainly did not expect him to take 2000 years to make another command performance. In a similar vein one would think that the Lord God would have chosen better prophets. Instead of cloaking the Book of Revelations in what today is obsecure symbolism (e.g. The Seven Heads and Seven Crowns of the Red Dragon in REVALTION 12: 3 are a clear references to the Seven Hills of Rome) one would have thought that these prophets, to make life a little easier for those of us in the 20th and 21st Centuries, would have at least given us a clear and recognizable time line. Something like "well, in the year XXXX, so and so will come to power in this particular country." But the prophet in The Revelation never gives us that. Instead he cloaks the message in the symbolism of the day because he was writing about the events and the political situation of the day, his day.

In a similar vein, the same people in our time who were so CONVINCED that Christ would return on January 1, 2000, had forgotten that the Christian Calander had no year zero. In other words, the year 2001 was the actual beginning of the new millenium. But for some mysterious reason, the group that BrandonG calls "The Radical Christian Right," decided to have their collective psychotic breakdown in late 1999 and early 2000. Few of these people went crazy (forgive me--crazier than they already were) on December 31,2000--January 1,2001. Indeed, last I knew we were all here. No rapture; no falling airplanes; no vanishing people; no Battle of Armegeddon; we're still stuck with the holier than thou Republicans. But for some reason the poor mathematicians on the far right never bothered to figure this out.

And even if they had it wouldn't have made a difference because we have miscalculated the year of Christ's birth by anywhere from five to seven years. If you go back into The New Testament and look at some of the historical events that were taking place at the time you suddenly realize that Christ was born anywhere from five to seven years prior to what has been accepted as the traditional date of his birth. Note also that we don't even celebrate Christ's birth at the right time of the year! According to the The NewTestament, The Shepherds were abiding in their fields. Well guess what? This is an activity that did not take place in the dead of winter. (Mid-eastern nights can be quite cold--ask anyone who lives in Arizona what nighttime temperatures in a desert climate are like and they'll tell you that you will freeze your bloody ass of. The shepherds would have been watching their flocks in the spring or fall, Jesus most probably having been born in one of those seasons. The only reason we ended up with a December Christmas was because the early Church Fathers wanted to coopt pagan holidays which took place at the same time of year--hence many of our Christmas traditions such as Christmas trees, gift-giving, mistletoe, wreaths, garlands etc. Translated into modern English,the new millenium, when considered in those terms, had actually begun in the early to mid 1990s. I guess maybe the Lord God needs a new calendar. So no matter how you dice it these Millenialists are just plain full of what makes the grass green.

How many historical figures have been refered to as "The Anti-Christ?" Atilla the Hun; Genghis Kahn; Naploean; Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin. Hell, the Book of Revelations is so heavy in symbolism and so nebulous in its rambling that it can be interpreted in just about any way you want to interpret it. Which probably explains why we've had witch hunts, Inquisitions, Holy Wars, and Crusades. Should we really be surprised by the fact that a mean-spirited clique of pseudo-Christian Nazis would use The Holy Bible as a weapon? Of course not. Especially when you consider the moral and intellectual worthlessness of their politics and theology.

Pick up a decent time line of human history. The Millenialists claim that The Book of Revelations warns us about wars. There have always been wars and there will always be wars. The Millenialists warn us about earthquakes. Again, there have always been and there will always be earthquakes! The Televangelists go on, and on, and mercilessly on, about plagues and diseases. Wake up people! Diseases and plagues are a part of human biology!Always have been and always will be. In short, bad things happen. Sane, level-headed people take rational steps to counter the effects and to find cures for the bad things. The Radical Christian Right uses them as weapons with which to beat their opponents over the head. Can you say, "bastardizing the Holy Bible into a weapon of hate and persecution?"

So if the Dominionists are not Christians then what are they? To be honest, they are as my often outspopken son has already stated, fascists. Historically, fascists have always smeared liberals as socialists, socialists as communists. It worked for Hitl, Mussolini and for Joe McCarthy and it may or may not be working for the present batch of would-be totalitarians. Only time will tell.

Again, BrandonG had it right. Their tactics are clearly fascist in nature and reveal them as the brutes and roughians that they really are. My advice to Brandon and to my fellow liberals is that they drive the point home in the same manner that they would drive a stake through a vampire's heart. The quicker these Dominionists are exposed for the theocratcic dictators that they really are,the safer this country will be for everyone else.

And now, if you will excuse me, I'm going to try and eat. Not an easy task these days, but I at least have an appetitie, thanks in large part to the antinausea medication that they're giving me to counter the effects of the chemo therpay that they're giving me. But then again, nothing makes me more nauseated than the insane rantings of the ignorant radical right.

THANKS BUT NO THANKS: AN ATHEISTS RESPONSE TO YOUR WELL MEANT PRAYERS

Thanks in large part to my often irrepressable son, I have been introduced to the wild, wonderful world of weblogging.

I had inteneded for my first post to be about another topic, but for reasons which shall soon become obvious, I have opted to put my original idea on hold and use this opportunity to complain about something that has been bothering me for the past two and a half weeks.

Last month my barber--my barber of all people--informed me that the birth mark on the back of my neck should be" looked at." Mind you, I had been born with this thing. It was a tiny, quarter inch wide spot, dark brown spot which was located on the back, left side of my neck. I never gave it a second thought. Not, that is, until my barber informed me that it had been growing and changing for the past several months. What was once a small, dark brown spot had now grown into a raised lump with distinct areas of blue, black, and gray coloration. Having an uncle-in-law who is a retired doctor proved to be of some help and when he told me that I was looking at a probable case of skin cancer I decided it was time to go to a specialist--just to shut everyone help.

As it turned out, I was the one who needed to be shut up. The birthmark with which I had lived for the past 36 1/2 years was indeed cacnerous, a malanoma no less. On the plus side we seem to have gotten to it in time. On the minus side, I now have a rather large wound on the back of my neck which, while not especially noticieable because of its location, will probably leave a deep, cavernous scar the size of Akron, Ohio. And again, on the negative side, the doctors inform me that I should undergo "subsequent treatment" to treat this problem on a systematic basis and to protect against any possible future outbreaks. Okay, I can see the logic in that. And if the truth is be to be known, I really don't mind the idea of putting up with a little misery now if it means that I'll be around to watch my six-and-a-half-yea- old triplets grow up and to watch my oldest son get married next June. It's worth it. I can live with the idea.

But what I DON'T want to live with are all these busy body neighbors, friends, and do gooders who are using my illness as an excuse to "evangelize" me. Maybe it's because I'm a former(Protestant Minister; maybe it's because I became an atheist; shit, maybe it's because I really don't like a lot of unnecessary attention, but I have really become disgusted with the constant flow of well-meaning indviduals who are offering me their spiritual guidance at an incredibly trying time. For some reason everyone seems to thnink that I should be going through a holier than thou conversion because I learned that I have a potentially dangerous disease. Well, my dear friends, I have news for you.

IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

I haven't believed in Gods, or Devils, or Heaven, or Hell, or reincarnation, or Nirvana, or any of that pie-in-the-sky delusional nonsense for the better part of eight years and I don't see myself going back tothe dark old days of ignorance and superstition. I am content to know that I was born into godless universe, that I live in a godless universe, and that I will die in a godless universe. I don't expect eternal damnation nor ever lasting bliss. All I expect is a very long, eternal, dreamless sleep from which there shall be no awakening. And that's it. End of story. Finis. When I'm dead I shall be truly dead.

Do I miss the comfort that comes from a belief in a delusional big daddy in the sky? Well, yes, as a matter of fact I do. But I feel more comforted by the fact that I have a clear and realistic understanding of the world in which I live and that I am doing the best that I can to make this, the only world that is truly real, a better place to live for my family and loved ones.

So for all the people who think that they need to preach and who think that I will be swayed by your well meant, but misdirected spirituality, I would humbly ask you to work on your OWN spirituality, and to leave my family and myself to handle this matter as we see fit. I don't mind if you want to say your prayers in the privacy of your own home or within the confines of your own church, and I must admit that the angel food cakes (is that a hint?) and casseroles that you've been bringing over are truly mouth-watering, BUT, I really do wish you would concentrate on your own spirituality and leave me to work on mine We like you a lot, and we appreciate your concern, but to be honest it's getting a little irritating and the worst thing that you can do for me at this time is to irritate me or bore me to tears. We're trying to keep an upbeat and yet realistic attitude around here and your constant preoccupation with death and the afterlife has not always made that possible.

Again, we like, even love you a lot, but really, people. Enough is enough.

Thanks for your concern,

Trevor (Enlightenment_76).

THE MIXED BAG PAPACY OF JOHN PAUL II

THE MIXED BAG PAPACY OF JOHN PAUL II

Vy Brandon,
Enlightnment,
Advocate1


For all intents and purposes the reign of Pope John Paul II was a mixed bag of both positive and negative achievements.

Even as a recovering Catholic I still have pleasant memories of the late John Paul II. Even when i disagreed with him on matters of morality, doctrine, and practice I could still respect the man, even as my respect for the Church as a whole sank to an all time low. Despite increasing differences and my eventual departure from the Church, I can still admit that John Paul II was at least sincere in is beliefs and that he did accomplish a certain amount of good during his 26 year reign as Pope.

On the plus side, John Paul II was the deciding factor in the decline and fall of Soviet Style Communism. Indeed, it might well be argued that the only reason I am writing this, and the only reason you are reading this is because JP2 had the conviction to speak truth to power. We did not, afterall have a Third World War, and the last I knew we didn't experience the Nuclear winter that many concerned scientists had envisioned as a direct result of an all out nuclear war. That in large part can be attributed to the pacifistic actions of John Paul II.

If ever there was a man of peace it was John Paul II. Here was a man who had survived both Fascism and Communism in his native Poland. He understood well the many ways in which power could be used an manipulated. While the Reagen Administration and its merry band of proto-Necons were funding the bloody, hypocritical Contras, John Paul II, was repudiating the use of force and violence as he inspired a series of peaceful resistance movements throughout Eastern Europe, and finally within the "Evil Empire" itself. Make no mistake about it: this was a very clever politician, an astute world leader, who knew precisely how far he could go when dealing with authoritarian powers. Not that the Reagen or Bush 1 Administartions were in any way appreciative. Throughout the early 1980's the Reagen administration virtually ignored the Gandhi-like revolution that was gaining momentum within the Soviet Block. True to form, the Neocons of the era payed little attention to Lech Walesa and Solidarity, opting instead to fund right wing death squads in a sanguniary effort to bring peace and democracy to Central America.

Was JP2 the only important factor in the decline and fall of Soviet style communism? Certainly not. Mikhail Gorbachev must be given some credit; and if we are to be honest we need to admit that the Soviet econmy, with its heavy emphasis on both military spending and obsessive centralized control, was anything except self-sustaining. For all intents and purposes it was a system doomed to collapse by its own weight, corruprtion, and ineptitude. But that doesn't change the fact that it was JP2, through his courageous visit to Poland which inspired millions of repressed people to take to the streets in peaceful protest. Indeed, if the people in the former Soviet Union and its satellite nations had responded as the Neocons respond to every international incident--with knee jerk violence--Mikhail Gorbachev might well have responded in kind and the cause for peace and freedom might well have been set back for another generation.*

Whether the the extreme right wing of the Church likes it or not--and we suspect that they probably do not--JP2 was actually acting on the provisions of the earlier provisions Vatican II, which prohibited the use of coercion in the pursuit of truth. Let's face it. There have been times in church history when the pursuit of truth was drenched in blood: the Crusades, localized witch hunts, Inquisitions, religious wars etc. Vatican II, combined with JP2s personal experiences under the Hitler and Soviet regimes, more or less left the highly popular Pope with a genuine distaste for violence.

Equally inspirational was the manner in which he closed the theological loophole on the use of the death penalty under extreme circumstances. Mind you, this was a man who survived an assassination attempt and who visited his would be assassin in an Italian prison where he had the moral fortitude to forgive the demented individual who had tried to kill him. Truth be known I don't think many of us would have the guts nor the character to have behaved in a similar manner. In a similar vein of tolerance, this was a Pope who reached out to different faiths. (He was , afterall, the first Pope to visit a Mosque, and his attempt to bridge the gulf between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches did prove useful in that they helped to lessen a little of the tension between these two branches of the Christian faith.

And yet, for all his compassion, the reign of JP2 has proven disastrous in other areas.

True, he did condemn the abuses and excesses of capitalism, advocating on more than one occasion a certain degree of governmental control of the market place. This after all was a Pope who, in matters of class conflict advocated a "preferred option for the poor," while condemning the excesses of both communism and the free market. You can't say that his concern for the poor was in any way disingenuous. But you can fault him for the policies that he promoted to remedy the situation.

Which brings is to the often confusing and hypocritical manner in which JP2 and the church hierarchy thought about and handled the poor.

What can we say? With a friend like JP2 the poor didn't need any enemies. Does anyone remember Mother Theresa? Of course you do. Where strength of will and faith are concerned, Mother Theresa was truly admirable. But when you look at the policy that she promoted, she was nothing less than destructive. Instead of educating women about their rights and bodies Mother Theresa openly endorsed the Catholic party line about subservience to men, celibacy, and the rhythm method. Her efforts to bring physical and spiritual comfort to the Indian slums were, again, admirable, but the policies that she endorsed, the Catholic opposition to artificial contraception in any way, shape, or form, was actually creating more of the very misery that she was trying to alleviate.

A friend of the poor?

Instead of promoting education about reproductive rights; instead of recognizing the fact that over population in Third World countries is a major factor in poverty, hunger, crime, and social instability, this church under this Pope adopted a policy which denigrated women as inferior beings and left in operation the practices which were causing the many problems that His Holiness and often spoken out against. And while you might argue that this is just Church teaching, you also need to remember that in this particular case Church teaching was partially--not exclusively, but partially--responsible for the deaths of more than 20 million AIDS victims. Think about it. At a time when we have 20 million dead from AIDS and additional 40 million people infected with the HIV virus, one would think that the Church would have at least enough common sense to have stepped out of the Dark Ages, recognized that we were facing unusual circumstances in the form of a global health crisis, and allowed the use of condoms (which in no way shape or form would have led to the "murder" of a fertilized egg cell). But this didn't happen. Instead the Church (JP2 included), maintained its irrational, and frankly, neurotic, stand on birth control to the very end. And the irony is that while the church condemns abortion as murder, its policy on birthcontrol is actually creating large numbers of unwanted pregnancies which end in the very abortions that the church so fervently condemns. You really need to wonder. Which does the church consider to be more important? Regulating personal lives or preventing unwanted pregnancies, which often end in abortion. Regrettably the answer would appear to be the former. Or to put it another way, the Church preached a self-contradictory gospel of personal responsibility, but limitted personal responsibility to celibacy, while eliminating the possibility that one might be responsible with artificial contraception.

It is no accident (nor a wonder) that the Catholic Church is all but dead in the Industrialized west. In Europe Catholic Cathedrals are virtual museums. In the United States, Catholic institutions (including churches and Catholic schools) are closing at an alarming rate. Convents are anachronistic. Homegrown new priests are a rarity. And yet defenders of the status quo routinely claim that Church membership has increased from 60 million to 67 million in the past ten years.

BUT, what they don't tell you is that much of that increase comes in the form of immigrants from impoverished countries where educational standards don't meet our own. Nor do they tell you that the church has a truly bizarre way of counting Catholics. In other words, if you were at any time a member of the Catholic Church but dropped out or converted, you, regardless of your present beliefs and practices, are still counted as a Catholic. Translated into modern English this means that we really don't have an accurate number as to the number of Americans who are currently active and practicing Catholics. But with recent revelations pertaining to sexual abuse and the ensuing coverup by the Church hierarchy, common sense should tell you that membership has probably decreased as a result of those revelations.

And yet the church openly brags about the fact that many of its new Cardinals come from Asia, Africa, and South America. Translated into modern English, the church has been expanding in third world countries where oppressive poverty, civil unrest, and social instability have limiting effects on education. In short, Roman Catholicism has been spreading in " Banana Republics" where corrupt governments, poor educational systems, ignorance, and outright superstition are par for the course; but losing ground in the high tech, better educated West. Does this tell you something? I'm sorry. Overpopulation, over-crowding, hunger, poverty, crime, civil unrest, ignorance, and the deaths of millions of people comprise an awfully high price to maintain the status quo of a right wing dictatorship in Vatican City.

Right Wing dictatorship? Oh yes. Despite the good that he has done on the world stage, the fact remains that JP2, while operating under the provisions of Vatican II , also did a great deal to undermine Vatican II. More power has been concentrated in the hands of the Papacy. Potential Cardinals were required to pass a theological litmus test. Open debates over theological issues were openly discouraged in Catholic universities. The Jesuit contsitution was suspended, Jesuit leadership dismantled. Liberation Theology in Latin America was ruthlessly squelched.

We know, We know. We've heard the old argument before. The Church isn't a democracy. It needs to follow the will of God. But we also need to remember that much of what we call church history is the result of both internal and external policies. Those who claim that the church never changes fail to recognize the fact that the church has already changed and that is changing even as we speak. For example. The papacy didn't exist in a recognizable form until the 5th Century. Prior to that the Bishop Of Rome was only a first among equals. Similarly the idea of Papal Infallibility was an evolving concept which came to a peak in 1870 under Pope Pius IX and was later misused by future Popes, notably Pius XI and Pius XII.

If we are truly serious about spreading democracy--as the regime in Washington so shallowly proclaims--then we should at least be willing to put our money where our theocratic mouths are and take the concept to its logical conclusion. Most Western Catholics don't have a problem with women priests. A vast majority of Western Catholics do not--repeat not--believe that artificial contraception is a sin.

And that's the problem. The "Powers That Be in Rome" know that if this Chuch were to ever democratize the process, the male-dominated Hierarchy would quickly be delegated to selling pencils on the nearest street corner. The Church, by its very nature cannot afford to democratize because that would mean that a group of (presumably) celibate men would no longer be able to tell their sexually active congregations what they should or should not be doing with their bodies. Never mind the theocratic language in which these arguments are invariably phrased by the Hierarchy. The fact of the matter is that this has always been about temporal power, it is about temporal power, and it shall continue to be about temporal power. The only difference between the reformers and the Hierarchy is the fact that the reformers have the decency and the back bone to admit this. The Hierarchy does not.

We saw the devasting effects of what happens when a patronizing Church Hierarchy moves in darkness and secrecy. It began to come out in the 1980s We called it the Priest Sex Abuse Scandal. If we want to be honest we would openly admit that if the CEO of a major corporation had behaved as ineptly as JP2 had during this particular crisis, that CEO would have been fired. And justifiably so. But in this case we really couldn't fire the CEO. In the first place, church doctrine really wouldn't allow for him to be fired; and even if it had, the startling act remained that the proverbial board of directors,(again, the Church Hierarchy),was actively involved in the coverup of the scandal itself. (Still think closed, nondemocratic institutions are such a hot idea?) And to add insult to injury, the infamous Cardinal Bernard Law will be allowed to perform a series of Funeral masses on Monday April 11th--quite an honor for a discredited clergyman who had been caught in the act of covering up for sexually abusive priests.

Even in the area where JP2 has received some justifiable credit--the manner in which he reached out to the Jewish Community and supposedly asked his fellow Catholics to burden a share of the blame for the Holocaust--the church found new and creative ways to fall short of its moral responsibilities. Contrary to popular belief, the Papacy shouldered little blame for the holocaust. The Historical Record was very clear. Throughout the 18th, 19th, and 20th Centuries Jews were treated abominably. Ghettos, pogroms, forced baptisms, kidnapping Jewish children to be raised as Catholics, restricting Jewish civil liberties, forbidding Jews to hold certain jobs, Papal rhetoric which denigrated Jews as vampires, revolutionaries, ad nauseam. And yet, in 1998, in "We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah," JP2 and the Church in general refused to admit the fact--not the opinion or the belief--but the fact--that the Christian community had created a climate of hate and fear which resulted in the holocaust. In fact, one might seriously argue that the Third Reich only mechanized what Christian leaders--Popes included--had been preaching for decade after decade after sorry decade.

To their credit the Vatican did have the decency to at least admit that the holocaust had taken place in countries of "long-standing Christian civilization." And it furter admitted that Christian attitudes had been formulative in the creation of the holocaust. But instead of criticizing past Popes for their often barbaric attiudes and preachings against the Jewish community, the Vatican refused to admit that past Popes had been instrumental in creating the antisemitic climate of hate and paranoia which had resulted in the atrocities of the Third Reich. True. Germany was, for all intents and purposes, a Protestant country; but that doesn't change the fact that Hitler was a Baptized Catholic. He grew up in Catholic-dominated Austria where he was subjected to the antisemitism of his time. Moreover Austrians played a disproportionately large role in the Holocaust. According to Simon Wiesenthal , half of the crimes associated with the holocaust were committed by Austrians. That's right, by Austrians who comprised a mere ten percent of the Greater German Reich's population.

Instead of admitting that the antisemitism of the 18th, 19th, and 20th century was in part religiously-inspired, the Vatican, in a stunning example of Orwellian doublespeak, shifted the emphasis from the often barbarous teachings of past Popes (i.e. religious teachings) to cultural and political causes. In fact the Vatican went out of its way to avoid the term "anti-semitism" altogether, opting instead for the sanitized term "anti-Judaism." It were almost as if the Church were trying to conceal the fact that it had once been engaged in a cultural war against Modernism; an outright attempt to crush everything from Communism and Socialism to freedom of religion, democracy, church-state separation, unions, Free Masons, Labor Unions, and of course, Jews.

That said we also need to admit that this Pope was instumental in repairing the often contentious relationship between Jews and Catholics. Granted, much of this goes back to Vatican II and the watershed provisions of "In Our Time," which repudiated the imbecillic myth about how the Jews as a people had killed Christ. Much to the chagrin of modern anti-semites, "In Our Time" affirmed the full and permanent integrity of the Covenant that God had made with Israel. In a single stroke the Catholic Church recognized the fact that the Covenant that God made with Israel is nothing less than Israel's path to God. After 1965 the Church recognized that Christianity had neither superseded nor replaced Judaism. Acting in the spirit of "In Our Time," JP2 made a refreshing (and long over due) move to bridge the gulf which had between the Jewish and Catholic communities.

Regardless as to the often self-excusing results which were found in "We Remember," the fact remains that the Church or rather JP2, was at least willing to take a long, hard look at the holocaust and the role played by the Church in general. The fact that JP2 was at least willing to examine where that kind of rabid hate and antisemitism came from was an important step forward.

The next important step took in 2000 when JP2 went to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem and prayed as a Jew would pray without invoking the name of Jesus. The message was very clear. JP2 was invoking the Spirit of "In Our Time," again repudiating the idea that the Church had somehow replaced Judaism. In short, this highl;y complex Pope, while in many ways a Catholic Fundamentalist may well have opened the door for an increased sense of Ecumenicalism.



The Papacy of John Paul II was a mixed bag. At times it was a candle in the dark. At other times it became the darkness itself. More often than not it was a bizarre blend of light and shadow. Supporters will almost undoubtedly beg that he be declared a Saint. Critics will bemoan the fact that he dragged the Church back to the days before Vatican II. In any event there were enough good intentions and missed opportunities to keep the debate alive for years to come.



*The differences between the Reagen-Bush 1 Administrations and JP2 were never as obvious as they were in November 1989 when the Berlin Wall came down. By any standard this was one of the crowning achievements in a porplonged struggle against tyranny. And how did Bush 1 show its appreciation? How did Bush 1 celebrate the peaceful triumph of liberty over Communism? Three weeks after the Berlin Wall came down, Bush 1 made a mockery of JP2's peaceful efforts by launching an illegal war against Panama, a move which was quickly repudiated by the Vatican. Throughout the 1990s and continuing right up to and including the U.S. invasion of Iraq, JP2 had consistently condemned the U.S. whenever it behaved aggressively towards other nations. Earlier, throughout the late 1980s and early 1990s, Bush 1 either couldn't or wouldn't believe that the Soviet Union was actually falling apart. Once the facts were undeniable, Bush 1 shifted from a reaction of disbelief to open annoyance. It was almost as if the proto-Neocons couldn't imagine a world without their beloved "Evil Empire."

THIS IS A CULTURE WAR: WHY AREN'T YOU FIGHTING IT?

THIS IS A CULTURE WAR:
WHY AREN'T YOU FIGHTING IT?

by Brandon

I've been telling my fellow Democrats for a few months now that we can't treat the present generation of Republicans as if they were your typical run of the mill politicians. They are not. Whether you want to admit it or not these people do NOT campaign to win elections--they campaign to destroy everything in their path; including everything from social programs that made life tolerable for seniors and the middle class (think Medicare and Social Security) to the Separation of Church and State that our Founding Fathers created to protect our freedom of religion, to the very air and water that we breathe and drink. With a primary goal of turning America into a Theocratic State which practices Social Darwinism as a "Christian" virtue, the Republican Party, with backing from its Radical Right goons, has indeed engaged in a Culture War that is designed to undermine the very foundation--the religious choices, economic security, and everyday liberties--on which our modern society has been built.

And yet, while the very basis of our security-both national and international--is being eroded by reactionary theocrats and neocons, the Democratic response has been to debate itself to death. Young Liberals, fellow progressives, let me explain something to you. We are under attack. Our enemies have revealed their rapacious natures on a daily basis and yet we refuse to take the threat as seriously as we should. History tells us what happens when a citizenry behaves as if it were an acquiescent flock of sheep. In the late 1920's a pint-sized sociopath named Adolf Hitler had the audacity to put his insane writings into print. Regrettably an entire nation, indeed, the entire world. did not read nor pay attention to those writings. The end result was the rise of the Nazi Party, World War II, and the Holocaust.

Now flash forward to 2004. Today we have a pack of power hungry reactionaries who are putting their barbarous paradigms into print on a regular basis. Their insane rantings form the basis of the entire AM radio frequency, especially the lower and upper channels where the so called "Christian Right" spews delusional, often radical, propaganda that sounds as if it were written by Paul Josef Goebbels. Their imbecilic TV programs litter our nightly news broadcasts. Their moronic writings dominate the religion section at our libraries and book stores. In short, the sociopaths of our era have expressed their truly savage intentions while the Democratic Party behaves as if is the modern day equivalent of the Weimar Republic.

Let's get something straight. The time for debate and conversation is over. This country is dealing with a repressive contituency that HATES the idea of debate. The one thing, and the ONLY thing, that the radical right has ever understood is the taking of power by distortion, innuendo, outright lies, and, on occasion, physical force.

Physical force you may ask? Oh yes! Does anyone remember the violent manner in which Southern segregationists tried to hold onto power during the 1960s? Do you remember the water cannons? The attack dogs? Church-bombings, cross-burnings, lynchings and murders that were committed as Bible-thumping white bigots tried to keep Black Americans in a perpetual state of virtual slavery? Is there anyone out there who remembers the cold-blooded manner in which corporations, and local law enforcement cracked down on labor in the 1920s and 1930s? Does anyone remember the manner in which the Hoover Administration fired on unarmed Veterans in the early days of the Republican-created Great Depression? I'm sure some people do. And to make matters worse, the right wing proclivity for violence and hate-mongering continues to this very day: Do the names Timothy McVeigh, Eric Rudolph, Aaron James McKinney and Russell Arthur Henderson ring a bell? Do we really believe that the Ku Klux Klan, The American Nazi Party, the Militia Movement, Aryan Nation, and the Christian Identity Movement (just to name a few) have been transported to an alternative universe? Of course not.

With this in mind, I really want to know what my fellow Democrats have been thinking for the past nine ot ten years. People, let me explain something to you. You're taking a brief case and index cards to a bar fight. Your opponents are bringing the political equivalents of baseball bats, brass knuckles, and broken beer bottles and we're showing up with debate points. The GOPigs are hell bent on busting political heads. They're coming with the clear and obvious intention of destruction. We're coming to sing a rousing chorus of "Kumbaya." Has it ever occurred to my fellow Democrats that maybe, just MAYBE it is time to adopt some new tactics?

Allow me to put this in very simple terms. The Republicans are street fighters. And if you want to beat them--if you want to roll back the wave of neofascism that is now threatening this Republic--you have to respond in kind. Ladies and Gentlemen, you need to stop being Ladies and Gentlemen. You need to wage the political equivalent of a Cultural World War, and, like your GOP counterparts, you must be prepared to destroy the reputations and careers of your oppontents in the process.

Be damned with the usual niceties and polite conversations. This is NOT a time for pleasantries. Your country is in danger and you need to acquire a few needed characteristics that you've been lacking for the past few years: backbones, fire in the belly, and attack rhetoric. Hint hint. When you're trapped in an alley by a homicidal serial killer, you don't lay down on the pavement and tell him to aim at the heart. No. You fight back. You make noise. You punch; you kick; you claw the bastard's eyes out: you do anything and everything that you can to save your life, but you do not, repeat not, roll over and allow him to eviscerate you!

This may be repugnant to Democrats and liberals in general but this is NOT a time for appeasement. This is a time for verbal and political action. I know this doesn't set well with the liberal tradition of patiently educating the public, but you're dealing with a rapaciously fanatical enemy that sees debate, ideas, and critical thinking as a threat to its very existence. And it is that paranoia, that kind of intolerance, that threatens all of us. To be blunt, high brow tactics are not going to convince the average, mainstream voter who has come to see liberals as gutless wimps. We saw a perfect example of this during the 2004 election, when John Kerry foolishly allowed a series of untrue campaign ads from the far right to go unchallenged for a period of not days, but weeks. The final result was only too preidctable. The average American voter saw a man who wouldn't even defend himself against his political enemies and assumed that he wouldn't have the fortitude to defend the country. We need to rediscover our convictions and more to the point, we need to air them--loudly and frequently and without embarassment.

Having learned the lesson of 2004, I truly hope that my fellow progressives will adopt a few tried and tested Republican tactics. Please consider the following:

1. The Republican thugs now control all three branches of the Federal government, which makes you wonder how in the name of all that's holy they can still blame liberals for anything. But now that they have that control we need to "adopt a strategy of selective retreat, much like the Russians have done to save their homeland on numerous occasions. Engaging in rearguard actions when we find opportunity and striking hard and fast when they are comfy. " *

2. To that end we need to stop being such wimps. Enough is enough already! Face the fact that Politics is a lot more than an over-glorified Debating Society. It's war without bullets and you must be prepared to wage it.

3. Reduce complicated theories and ideas to short, simple statements and do not hesitate to repeat yourself. It never hurts to drive the message home until it is well understood.

4. Try not to use more than two or three arguments at a time. Or, to put it another way, don't clutter your rhetoric, don't confuse your audience, and stay on topic.

5. Fight fire with fire. When attacked, be prepared to fight back. If your opponent treats you with respect, treat your opponent with respect. If your opponent is out to destroy your career and your reputation, respond in kind.

6. If the Neocons believe that preemptive warfare is such a good idea, then let's give it to them in its cultural and political forms. Never be afraid to go on the offensive. Never be afraid to speak your mind. Remember, speech, ideas, and information are like ammunition: they won't do any good unless you actually have the courage to use them.

7. Don't let an attack go unanswered. As I wrote above,this is what John Kerry did when faced with the Swift Boat Liars blitz. False accusations and distortions must be countered quickly and efficiently.

8. Don't be afraid to be a personality. We need candidates with both, charisma and intelligence. The intelligence will serve a candidate well after he or she is elected. The charisma will get him or her elected in the first place.

9. Don't be afraid to use humor. The self-deprecating variety is fine, but don't forget to ridicule and humiliate your opponent whenever you get the chance. And don't worry about running out of material. The right wing provides it on an a daily basis. Think Barney and Sponge Bob, the Gannon fiasco, W's frequent mangling of the English language, Tom Delay's legal difficulties. You must admit--the far right has been a blessing for humorists, satirists, and political cartoonists.

10. Keep your emotions under control. Anger can be a motivating force, indeed, anger is often a justifiable response to unjust or intolerable situations. But try to keep it under control. Mold it. Tap into it, but make sure that you are in control of the anger and not vice versa. As bad as the Republicans are, you need to fight this and future political battles: not because you hate Republicans and their warped theocratic agenda of top down repression, but because you love freedom and the right to make personal choices in your own life.

Remember--this is a Culture War. This country is in danger of being overrun by Pseudo Christian Fascists who want to control every aspect of your life; from the moment of your conception, until the second you draw your last breath. You are fighting a consituency of right wing radicals who, if given the opportunity, would control every aspect of your personal life, including with whom you sleep and when you do so, to the types of medical care and medications that you would consume. It's high time that we brought some political ammunition to the battle line. It's time to admit that we are fighting an over-zealous tribe of cultural warriors who want to legislate and abjudicate their opposition out of existence.

It's time to stand up, be heard, and take back this country before it's too late.

Brandon


*From a quote by our friend Joe R. in an email dated 4 November 2004.

GOP + THE RADICAL CHRISTIAN RIGHT + NEOCONS = SATAN

GOP + NEOCONS + THE RADICAL CHRISTIAN RIGHT = SATANISM



Has anyone noticed that the Republican Party of the late 20th and early 21st Centuries has adopted the beliefs and goals of the infamous First Church of Satan? No, I am not kidding. To look at the often brutal foreign and domestic policies that are so routinely endorsed by the GOP and its Radical Christian Reich bass, one has to wonder if their agenda hasn't been lifted directly from the pages of the Satanic Bible.


For those of you who aren't too familiar with the teachings and literature of the First Church of Satan (and you're God awful lucky if you aren't), this demented organization sought to create a repressive police state in which the strong were to survive and the weak were to be weeded out, creating what the church calls "achievement-orientated leadership." Church beatitudes included warped distortions such as: "Blessed are the strong for they shall possess the earth,"and "If a man smite you on one cheek then smash him on the other."" Highly materialistic in its world view, the First Church of Satan was dedicated to self-gratification and the pursuit of material wealth. Advancement through the church hierarchy was achieved through a dedication to Satanic doctrine, but other factors were considered as well: the type of decor in ones home; the make and model a member's car; dining practices; financial situations, ad nauseam

This may sound like a truly wicked view of the world, and for all intents and purposes, it is, but that doesn't change the fact that (in many ways) the agenda of the First Church of Satan has become the agenda of the Neocons, the Radical Christian Right, and the Republican Party in general.

Think about it.

BLESSED ARE THE STRONG FOR THEY SHALL POSSESS THE EARTH:

This, for all intents and purposes, is the basis for both, Neocon foreign and fiscal policy.

The Neocon desire to rule the world (might makes right) is obvious: it positively reeks of Devil Worship. An unprovoked invasion of a nation which, while barbarous, had not attacked us, followed by an inept new government which can't even make the most basic of democratic decisions while a homegrown insurgency makes a mockery out of its budding security apparatus.

Not exactly a stunning success by any measure, despite the happy-sappy good news that the Radical Christian Right likes to peddle as the "truth." And if the kind of sexual abuse and wanton disregard for sexual morality that we saw in those Iraqi prisons is any indication as to the kind of "Christian morality"that the Radical Religious Right wants to impose on us here at home, then all I can say is this: "God help us."

Just as destructive is the Neocon/Radical Christian Right economic policy here at home. I'm sure the Satanists in the world must be salivating over a set of policies which virtually idolize wealthy corporations and the super rich at the expense of the lower and the middle classes. Again, we seem to be faced with a Satanic philosophy in which the strong are favored so that they might possess the earth. When seen in this light one could safely argue that everything from tax cuts for the over privileged, to funding slashes for social programs, to the Bush privatization plan for Social Security, are all in keeping with the social-darwinistic philosophy behind the Satanic Bible and the First Church of Satan. Even right wing tort reform--an effort which reveals hellacious inspiration in both the economic and legal spheres-- has been carefully designed to weed out the weak (in this case, consumers) for the benefit of the strong (powerful corporations).

And, when combined with the Bush Administration's proclivity for secrecy and strong arm legal tactics, one might just conclude that Bush and his legions of Neocon goons are more in line with American Satanism and its desire to create a police state for the strong and able bodied than it is with mainstream Christianity and its concern for the weak, imporverished and disabled.

Let's face it, you didn't hear Democrats telling the American people to go shopping after the terrorist attacks on 911--a clearly materialistic act which could have been lifted directly from the pages of a Satanic text. And if you want to go back a little further, it was the Reagen Administration, with its obsessive craving for military power and its moronic belief that "greed was good," which enhanced the trend for materialism and paved the path towards the sick, narcissistic world in which we live today

What's that you say? Grampa Ronny was a Satanist? Well, let's put it this way. For all his talk about decency and American values, the man seldom went to church. And the economic policies that he promoted, (when combined with the philosophy that he espoused) were largely responsible for the social decay that we saw during the 1980s and early 1990s. Until the 1980s America had a problem with gangs. That was a common fact and no one denied it. But when Reagen came to office and introduced his warped gospel of trickle down selfishness, gangs became transnational criminal /business organizations which flooded our streets with new and more addictive drugs--not to mention senseless violence over turf and territory. (Indeed, in many ways the "values"of the modern Republican Party are the same "values" of an inner city street gang, but that's an argument for another time and place.)

At the same time, the Reagen/Bush 1 philosophy of materialism was having an equally devastating effect in our public school systems as junior high and high school youths (even those in affluent neighborhoods) begin to shoot and stab each other over everything from sports jackets to athletic shoes: as if we could have expected anything else when our leaders were promoting a message of getting ahead at any cost. In short, the Reagen Administration, like the present Bush regime, was long on talk about morality and proper social behavior, but their policies were creating acts of violence which were both immoral and destructive. Or, to put it another way, the Necon message of "enlightened self interest"(an Orwellian oxymoron if ever there was one) was, and is, more in tune with Anton LaVey and the Satanic Bible than it was with the teachings of Jesus Christ.

And now for the bad news. Their legal policies are just as brutal and malevolent.

IF A MAN SMITE YOU ON ONE CHEEK SMASH HIM ON THE OTHER:

If Neocon fiscal/economic policies are rapacious in the extreme, then their view of the American Legal system is nothing less than sadistic. We've seen this building for several years: the anal retentive manner in which they imposed mandatory sentences and stripped power from what should ideally be an independent judiciary; the brutal, often psychopathic delight in which they threw juvenile offenders into adult prisons; the blood thirsty manner in which they defended the death penalty for both, minors and the mentally ill. Never mind the fact that Neocon justice (another Orwellian oxymoron) is just another example of handing the earth to the strong and avaricious; in a very real sense it is also a fine endorsement of the Satanic proverb, "If a man smite you on one cheek, smash him on the other."

Nothing demonstrates this point more painfully than the right wing cult of death and its obsessive compulsive attachment to the death penalty.


At what point in the Bible did Jesus Christ kill (i.e. execute) someone? The answer, quite simply, is that he didn't. I find plenty of passages in which he asked his followers and critics alike to forgive and to turn the other cheek. I see that wonderful passage where he stopped an adulterous woman from being stoned to death, but I do not see too many incidents when Jesus advocated the use of lethal injections, hangings, or the electric chair. As a matter of fact, in Luke 22: 50-51, when the ear of the servant of the high priest is cut off, Jesus actually touches the ear and heals this individual, who incidentally, was one of the people who had been sent to arrest him. And before you say that Jesus didn't know that his arrest would lead to his eventual execution, I would refer you back to Luke 19:31-34, (and to similar passages in Matthew 20:17, and Mark 10_32-34) where Jesus predicts (for the third time) his own death. In short, Jesus actually forgave one of the people who would prove instrumental in his eventual state-sanctioned murder. Later, in Luke 23:34, he issues the famous words "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." In other words, he was forgiving the people who were killing, indeed, murdering him.

Succinctly stated, the Neocon/Radical Christian Right attitude towards law and justice is more in keeping with the beliefs and practices of the First Church of Satan and the Pagan Roman government which executed Jesus, than it is with the New Testament. Whether it's the execution of minors and the mentally ill or "merely" throwing people into prison for minor, victimless crimes, or if it's forcing convicted criminals to work in chain gangs, the fact of the matter is that the Necons and the Radical Christian Right have adopted a legal philosophy which has turned the teachings of Jesus Christ on their theological heads.

In closing, it seems to me that those who sing the praises of Jesus the loudest may well be in league with the forces of darkness. Greed, avarice, an anal retentive legal philosophy; a desire to rule the world; status at the expense of spirituality, erosions of our civil liberties, an inability to sympathize with the poor, a contempt for the lower classes, a nationwide obsession with power and a preoccupation with wealth and physical possessions: each and every one of these is a trait that would have been embraced by the First Church of Satan.

And, it would seem, by the Neocons, the Radical Christian Right, and the Republican Party as a whole.