Book cites 'Theocon' threat

This is the side of the right that scares me most.But this could be a slippery slope for politicians. The words of Benjamin Whichcote says it best.

"Among politicians the esteem of religion is profitable; the principles of it are troublesome"

There is no doubt that our venerable tradition of secularism is under siege. The question is how strong is the Theocon threat? They are already watering down science education in America (which is worse than simply being embarrassing) by positing the absurdly specious argument that "Intelligent Design" deserves to be weighed in any academic forum.

The good news is that their fortunes are tied to the Republican Right and that will spike their guns for the time being.

As I've pointed out several times before, it is no small irony that it is our systemic secularism (battered, but still intact after 230 years) which protects their freedom of religion.

A balanced view of the separation of church and state?

There either is separation or isn't. And right now there isn't.

End of story.

The "Christian threat". What a joke: a notion so silly, only an academic or a Liberal would take it seriously.

Damon Linker is just the latest in a line of Secular Progressives to rant against Amercians who share a Judeo-Christian heritage. John Lock and Cardinal Bellarmine influenced the writing of the Decalaration of Independence and the Constitution of the Unieted States of America.
Americans who believe in Almighty God as Washington, Adams, Madison and Jefferson and are other founders did should not have to ride in the back of the bus. This book is anti-Catholic and as a Roman Catholic I take this pseudo secularism seriously and so should all Christians and Jews.
So, he worked for the conservative movement and now has been converted to secularism so what. As for me and my house we will praise the Lord, Jerry White, Springfield, IL

There is a reason that our Forefathers added to the Constitution a separation between church and state, I think they saw this coming. Bush has taken this country to the brink of self destruction, between allowing torture, putting us in a modern day crusade in Iraq, the Terri Schiavo nonsense, and the attempt to replace science with intelligent design. This country has survived for over 200 years without government sponsored extreme Christian groups changing our laws to express their ideology. The Bush Administration and the Republican Congress are trying to dismantle the Constitution and undermine our system of democracy.

Truly scary. I look forward to reading this book.

For Halloween, I had been tempted to dress up as what I thought was the most frightening thing known to Americans, an al Qaeda operative. But, after this post, I guess I should dress up as a conservative Christian and scare the bejesus out of even more of the people who post on this board. Beware! I'm coming for your liberty!

"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries." James Madison, 1803

Another great book on this subject was written by a former Republican Strategist for the Nixon and Reagan administrations. The book is called "American Theocracy". I agree - There is a clear reason why our forefathers wrote about separation and church and state. Just think of the pandering, waste of tax dollars and other misguided directions that this current administration has taken just to garner "brownie points" and "misguided votes" from the Far Right Side:
1. Terry Schiavo Case. Yeah - Let's spend several more million dollars on something that is really a personal and family issue - My favorite FOX News fiasco was when they had Sean HAnnity camped outside Terry Schiavo's death-house. It was almost like something out of a bad Saturday Night Live skit.
2. Stem Cell Research. While other countries are developing stem cell research, most notably China and the European Union, this country sadly is going to be lagging behind on advancing this type of research.
3. Darwin's Theory - Please. Didn't we fight this fight in the 1920's?
I cannot wait for the enforcement of "Chastity Belts" for all virgins in this country.

Amen...Janet!

The Christain Right are the biggest danger to this Country. We who are Christain who do not believe in what they do are call anti- Christain. But is is there believes like Dobson lies that said the Foley case was just a Prank by the Page. Or the statement of Falwell after 9/11 that is was all the lefts fault. Or Pat Robertson Staements show you who they are pure danger to this Country and our Freedoms. The Far Right are as bad as the people who attacked this Country they are just as Extreme as them. Blow up clinics hang dolls outside of people home,put Dr.'s on Targets. And worse of all excuse Foley's actions and the cover up. No it them or us according to them. Who is them anyone who does not think like them.

I agree with Bill R., Damon Linker is right on target. Rove and the Bushies have used religion as a wedge to solidify their power base and win elections. The resulting polarization effect has been severe, I lived through the social upheaval of 60's and it wasn't this bad even then. Frankly, given the damage done to our society and core constitutional values Rove should be tried for treason. Pretty sad statement for a country founded on religious freedom (and freedom from religion).

It was fairly evident in 2004 what Bush and his advisors were doing and yet we reelected him. Scientific research is under attack by the right, Federal funding of basic research has been limited or even eliminated in areas of research that do not fit nicely into their narrow view of the world. Our education system is also being attacked by the ID folks and their pseudo-scientific faith based views. Shame on us voters for allowing this to happen.

It is refreshing to hear some voices of light and reason returning to political discourse. Let’s get back to our core constitutional values and reinstate the separation between government and religion. Throw the “Theocons” out of office, give Ayatollah G.W. his walking papers.

Ah, more scare tactics from the "(left) wing nuts" (that's for you, John E.). Another case of the left finding a group they disagree with and then painting them as a threat to America, the Constitution and individual liberty. I am tired of this hypocrisy from the left that claims to be open minded and welcoming of all people - - open minded except when it concerns those who disagree with hardcore left wing views. When I hear talk of individual liberties being restricted I see the greatest threat coming from the left, not the right. All too soo it will be illegal for me to say that homosexuality is wrong, say that abortion is murder, say that the theory of evolution is just a theory and there may be other considerations, I'll be prohibited from praying in my school, or expressing a religious thought in a university, and probably be prohibited from attending church. All of these restrictions will be promoted by the liberals in the interest of "fairness" and "separation of church and state." Separation doesn't mean elimination. Try to be a little more open minded and accept that there are many of us who have a different point of view on the issues, and that our point of view may be just as nuanced, reasoned and well thought out as yours.

Brian,

No so-called liberal is trying to make it illegal to have whatever weird beliefs you might have. Those who value the principles this nation was founded on are saying YOU can't impose your beliefs on THE REST OF US, something that seems to lost on the Christian RIght. And to come out and say, for example, that "homosexuality is wrong" doesn't give idea that you are that open minded yourself.

I'm not surprised at the intensity of emotions in most of these comments. The kernal of truth, I believe, is Juanito's parting shot (comment no. 2). The religious groups that colonized this land were fleeing political persecution, not simply being marginalized for their beliefs. To protect a person's freedom of choice regarding religion, the founders took care to keep the government out of the business of religion. The personal opinions and beliefs of the founders are of interest, but ultimately beside the point. This nation has (occasionally) succeeded in nurturing the freedom of religion BY MEANS OF the separation of church and state. Now, yes, the separation can get out of hand too. But no one has come up with a better idea. . . . A born-again, Spirit-filled believer.

"The "Christian threat". What a joke: a notion so silly, only an academic or a Liberal would take it seriously.

Posted by: Bruce | Oct 18, 2006 7:52:17 AM"

Interesting coming from a joke even liberals won't take seriously.

All too soo it will be illegal for me to say that homosexuality is wrong, say that abortion is murder, say that the theory of evolution is just a theory and there may be other considerations, I'll be prohibited from praying in my school, or a religious thought in a university, and probably be prohibited from attending church. All of these restrictions will be promoted by the liberals in the interest of "fairness" and "separation of church and state." Posted by Brian...

Brian...Your right to say that won't be illegal,
hopefully, the mainstream citizens won't be forced into beieving your beliefs. Nobody should be forced to live by someone elses religion. The religious right believes they have that right. Yet on all the issues you raise...the majority are in favor of the laws as they stand and have been settled in the courts.

Brian, get with the program. No one is going to take or limit your right to be religious. Of course you can pray in school, it just can’t be school sponsored or sanctioned. Please realize that some folks are not Christian or Jewish and (gasp) may not even believe in an organized religion!!! We are tired of having religion shoved down our throat.

You are guilty of taking the discussion to the extremes, let's get back to real debate and realize that neither side has all of the best answers. Only a blend of ideas/ideals from both sides can realistically work for society as a whole, in this political environment it just isn't going to happen. We need more civility and open discussion without the hype and hyperbole.

Have a nice day.

Brian,
I don't know what you are talking about. You have a right to do all of those things mentioned: pray in your school, express a religious thought in a university, and attend the church of your choice. The wall of seperation is crossed when the public schools compel you to pray in school and compel you to express a religous thought. You can hate homosexuals all you want, scream that abortion is murder, and rightly state that evolution is a theory not 100% fact.

Brian,

You may say homosexuality wrong. You will get arguments here, but I don't see your right to say such is being restricted.

You may say abortion is murder. You will also get arguments here, but once again, I don't see your right to say such is being restricted.

You and your kids have the right to pray in school. Youn and they may pray before each meal, before each test, or whatever. I dont' think any private conversation between the deity of your choice and you should be restricted. You may talk to him/her/it at your convenience. It's the school led prayer that's the point of argument here. Do you believe there should be a school led prayer?

I disagree with those people who shout down conservative ideas as much as the ideas they're shouting down. But when the conservaitve religious ideas is made into law, I get VERY concerned.

Brian states: "When I hear talk of individual liberties being restricted I see the greatest threat coming from the left, not the right. All too soo it will be illegal for me to say that homosexuality is wrong, say that abortion is murder, say that the theory of evolution is just a theory and there may be other considerations, I'll be prohibited from praying in my school, or expressing a religious thought in a university, and probably be prohibited from attending church."

As a liberal I will always defend your right to SAY any of those things. That right will always be yours under our Constitution quite possibly the greatest document ever written. I will, however, oppose any efforts to make people who do not share your values and beliefs to adhere to them. If you beleive homosexuality is wrong fine, shout it from the rooftops, but if you discriminate against homosexuals you will be violating the law and will recieve punishment for it. If you beleive that your child should pray in school, great, but it can't be in an organized setting that will ostracize my child because he/she won't participate. If you beleive that evolution is incorrect based on your belief system, fantastic, you have every right to beleive that and teach it to your children. Just not in a public school.

These are the things that out Founding Fathers fought for. The right to beleive as we want and say as we want without persecution by any government. Now why is that wrong?

I hope that one day the good people in the Religious Right will wake up,and realize that they are being used by the W. administration,and the Republicans for their votes.

This is why our forefathers wanted a seperation between church,and state.

Brian,

Where are you getting any idea that liberals are trying to prohibit you or anyone else from going to church? Is this some right-wing talking point that you've been emailed from the RNC or is it something you've heard on Fox? Last I checked, I haven't seen any barricades or throngs of protestors surrounding any churches. I have, however, seen throngs of church members surrounding abortion clinics to try to prohibit women from accessing legal medical services. I have also seen church members picketing at funerals, most notably military funerals, saying such things as "God hates fags".

No liberal is trying to interfere with your right to practice your religion. If you want your child to pray in school, then s/he is free to do so. If you want your child involved in school sponsored prayer, that's a different animal entirely, and you can send your child to religious school.

As for saying that abortion is murder or homosexuality is wrong, you are free to say anything you wish, but others are free to disagree with you, and, in fact, in the case of the latter, they are free to express their own opinion that your opinion is bigoted, considering that homosexuals do not choose their orientation.

Good post, Brian. Remember they're open-minded and welcoming... as long as you agree with everything they say and do.

Brian,

Once again, you're a neo-con who hasn't a clue. No body is saying you can't call homosexuality wrong; nor is anybody saying you can't irrationally claim abortion is murder. What we as liberals are saying is stop trying to impose your religious beliefs on me and my Constitution, one that clearly defines a separation. You can bury your head in the sand all you want and let those pedophile priests in robes tell you how to live your life. I, personally, don't need these people to dictate how I live, and I'll be damned sure that idiots who think that "evolution" is merely a theory aren't anywhere near my kid's board of education. Why is it that scientists, at least 99.9% don't dispute evolution, but the religious nut bars do? This administration has done more harm to science in this country then the Vatican did during the time of Galileo!

WingNut Brian,
What are you crying about???

All of the things you just listed as being banned for you to do are currently being rammed down our throats by the likes of you,the W.administration, the NeoCons in Congress,and Jerry White from Springfield.

Save your crying for after the election,when we vote the wingnuts out of power,and return this country to a commonsense direction,not one dreamed up by you,and your pastor.

Thus quothe Brian:

"All too soo it will be illegal for me to say that homosexuality is wrong, say that abortion is murder, say that the theory of evolution is just a theory and there may be other considerations"

Brian, nobody is prohibiting you from saying these things. And nobody can, because our secular constitution protects your right to express your ideas, no matter wrong they may be.

And..

"I'll be prohibited from praying in my school, or expressing a religious thought in a university, and probably be prohibited from attending church."

Anybody may pray in any school; our secular constitution guarantees it. No student can be forced or pressured to pray; our secular constitution guarantees that too. Obviously you're a religious person, so I find it amazing that the idea of a State Prayer doesn't disturb you.

As for the rest, well, I won't bother.

The separation of church and state does not appear in the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter saying there was a separation of church and state long after he was the President.To paraphrase the Constitution it states Congress shall make no laws establishing a religion or interfering in the practice of religion. This is far from a separation of church and state.Jerry White, Springfield, IL

The tired argument of "I will not be able to pray in school," is just that tired and certainly not true. There is no ORGANIZED prayer in school. As long as there are tests for children to take in schools there will be praying going on.

In collge, I took Russina History. Imagine my surprise at the tour de force of religion and the depth of discussion that tool place in that course. Religion is mingled in the origins and development of every civilization's history. Religion is discussed in college.

I am a practicing Christian. I am not Catholic, Mormon, Jehovah Witness, Seventh Day Adventist, Pentacostal, Lutheran or Episcopal. I resent having their ideas thrust upon me. Which Christian ideas should the country adopt? Mine or yours? I deeply appreciate having a secular government not interfering in my religious practice. I am glad that technically we have a government that is supposed to not interfere in the practice of religion.

Oct.18,2006

US death toll in Iraq hits 68 for the month of October.

Thanks Theocons!!

Fretting about the power of ‘theocons’ may be titillating entertainment, but the secular horse has already departed the barn.

I observe Midwestern American youth daily. What I see are 18-24 year-olds unself-consciously performing lives from a highly ‘secular’ script. Dynamic multi-modal interpersonal relationships are not merely tolerated and supported: they are enacted.

While theocons current and former entertain us, our children continue to mold a more pluralistic social context for us all.

If there is a Devil, then religion is surely his invention. Wake up America! Look around the world and in history. Millions upon millions have been killed for this doctrine or that. The strength of America has always been to let religion thrive, but NOT to let it influence government in any way. Separation of church and state must surely be a wall rather than a wink and a nod.

I can stop the argument immediately. Would you like to see satanist prayers or tenets in schools and government buildings? That's why there should be a seperation before all of us have to live under the benevolent teachings of L. Ron Hubbard!

In the real world, the world outside the Tribune Tower, this week a prominent supporter of a senatorial challenger called the incumbent senator the "anti-christ" during a rally for the challenger. Theocon bigotry showing? Hardly. The one called the "anti-christ" was Republican Senator Rick Santorum of PA, and the remark was made by a prominent Democrat supporting Democrat Bob Casey. Since this real-world remark was made by a Democrat, I'm confident both the "Swamp" and the "Trib" will hide it from their readers. "Theocon" and other conspiracy fantasies should not be confronted by the facts.

Billyboy,

Do you support the people who are protesting at our Military funerals??

These are the same people who love George W. Bush with a passion.

Do you support them, Bill,Pauloooooo,Brian,JaneD/JD,Jerry White of Spingfield???

You can't have one without the other,wingnuts.

Bruce,
Who is this prominent Democratic supporter? Name please.

John E waste of time. I ride my bike to protect are fallen we are Democrats , Republicans WE ARE VETERANS

Most people crying out for church-state separation emphasize that church must not interfere with government. Too often, people forget the flipside, which was also a concern of our Founding Daddies: If the church can interfere with the state, then the state can interfere with the church.

In other words, if you break down that wall, then what's to prevent the government from stepping into your church and dictating the service to you?

One fast way to stop the far right church's from trying to influence policies and politics - Start Taxing Church's that endorse candidates, refuse parishioners because of their political beliefs, tell churchgoers not to vote for particular candidates, etc. Watch them get out of the Business of Politics real fast.

Jerry White denies even the existence of the separation of church and state. Yet many of the right wing posters on hear say fear of theocrats is unjustified? What a world.

Ms Bennet,I find your post simple and to the point.Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us.

Here we go again Rove Bull Alert NFL is a Target by terrorist. Every week we will hear this from the right scare America time. Got Tickets still going

Good post, Brian. Remember they're open-minded and welcoming... as long as you agree with everything they say and do.

Posted by: Bill | Oct 18, 2006 11:49:22 AM

Geez, Bill. That's a comment I'd expect from a 3 year old who resorts to stomping and wailing to get his way . Did you read ANY of the posts in response to Brian? Sorry, but all the threats to our freedoms contained in the Constitution seem to be coming from the Right and the political party that is supposed to be all about minimizing government intrusion into our lives. NOBODY said anything about MAKING you give up your views, no matter how boneheaded they may sound (I know that that can be said about mine as well....SO THERE! [sarcasm intended])

Anyone who takes the idea of a coming or existing theocracy seriously is nuts. Nothing that Linker lists has any smackings whatsoever of a theocracy. Outlawing the killing of unborn children, forbidding the starvation of those who are cognitively or otherwise disabled, not using taxpayer funding for supporting research on unborn human beings (what else is a human embryo?), making sure that evolution is taught as a theory (last I checked it is still a theory in search of supporting evidence), forbidding same-sex marriage (which no society in any age of history has ever allowed) -- what do these impose in terms of religion? Nothing. Yes, there is morality implied, but morality is implied in every piece of legislation, from that forbidding murder and theft to that which taxes us.

No one in the Administration is proposing the establishment of a state church, sending police through cities to be sure everyone's in church on Sunday, distributing rosaries or placing crosses in public schools, forbidding commerce or travel on Sunday beyond going to church without permission from the state, etc., etc. As far as I can tell, no one in the country has been forced by the state to go to church, convert from his or her religious beliefs or lack thereof, or prevented from expressing those beliefs.

I'm sure there are people who would like to see those things happen, just as there are people who would like to see all laws regarding nudity abolished or those who would like to make sure there's no religion allowed in the country at all. The existence of those desires, however, doesn't portend any great change in the way our government is conducted. If I'm not mistaken, elections by the general population are still coming up next month and again in 2008 and 2010 and so on. Bush has not gained the power to name his successor or who sits in Congress, appoint to cabinet or judicial positions without Congressional approval, or appoint bishops, pastors or priests.

Until there are real deviancies in the way governmental business is conducted, talk of theocracies, monarchies, dictatorships, despotisms and other non-democratic republican ways of conducting the people's business is simply a scare tactic used by the left or the right to try to get the electorate to vote their way.

"...if you break down that wall [seperating church and state], then what's to prevent the government from stepping into your church and dictating the service to you?

Posted by: Elizabeth Bennet | Oct 18, 2006 2:22:28 PM

Yes, Ms Bennet, and I suspect that some people (foolishly) aren't troubled by that, that they are confident that the state will dictate services that suit THEM, and that other religious persuasions should then get with the program and be saved.

My guess is that they don't care about the unfairness of that. They should at least understand the danger of it, though. If the precedent is established it can always be turned against THEM.

(I wish we could do italics here instead of ALL CAPS for emphasis.)

If I hear one more Christian cry about how persecuted they are in this country, I'm gonna puke. They act like they have a right to have the government promote their religion via holiday displays honoring their religion, or having our schools lead public prayers at public functions. When people point out that we shouldn't be using government infrastucture for their religous propoganda, they act as if they are being oppressed. What a farce. As a Christian that actually tries to follow Christ's teachings, I am in total favor of keeping religion (not neccessarily religous principles) out of our government.
While there is no peril to the religous freedoms Christians enjoy, as was absurdly claimed by Brian, perhaps he might take note of the latest legislation from our glorious leader. Legislation that is so broad, and ambiguous that it gives the executive branch the ability to declare any American citizen it wants an enemy combatant, deprive them of due process, torture a confession out of them, and convict them in a secret court. What do you suppose that might do to freedom of speech? What do you suppose that might do to freedom of religion. What happens when the President, whoever that might be, doesn't want to bear criticism from say, the Pope, regarding his actions. Based on this legislation he can declare the Catholic church as being hostile to the US, (basically a terrorist group, especially if they rendered aid to areas like Lebanon,) then, under the legislation, anyone that gave money to the Catholic church, or Charity could be declared an enemy combatant, and detained without the right of Habeus Corpus. All under the guise of the GWOT. There are real dangers of having our Constitution seriously damaged, and it's coming from GW Bush, and his claims of far reaching executive power that can't be checked by the other branches of government, and is being faciltated by a spineless rubberstamp Congress that doesn't even bother to read legislation before they vote for it, all in the name of having an issue to use against the other party during a mid-term election.
Unless you can give even a single instance of a law that restricts your ability to practice your religion while not violating the rights of others, quit your ridiculous claims about how your being persecuted. The government gives you the absolute right to believe whatever you want, it's not their to help you promote your particular religous sect.

WOW!

You liberals really do have a mean side. Where's all the talk about looking at both sides of an issue and listening to DIFFERENT VIEWPOINTS. Most of you have not even read the book and you're agreeing with everything in it.

As far as Christians thinking they are persecuted, I'm not buying it. Christians get dumped on all of the time - in movies, TV, books. Everybody takes a potshot. It happens infrequently with the Jewish faith, but look out when it does. Reference the Mel Gibson incident for proof.

All I'm reading is sour grapes about a Republican being in the White House for eight years. Talk is cheap. If you don't like your political leaders, vote them out or someone else in. Democrats had two chances and didn't take advantage.

Or, would you like some cheese with that wine.

Jim

"Nothing that Linker lists has any smackings whatsoever of a theocracy. Outlawing the killing of unborn children, forbidding the starvation of those who are cognitively or otherwise disabled, not using taxpayer funding for supporting research on unborn human beings (what else is a human embryo?), making sure that evolution is taught as a theory (last I checked it is still a theory in search of supporting evidence), forbidding same-sex marriage (which no society in any age of history has ever allowed) -- what do these impose in terms of religion? Nothing."

- Posted by: Thomas A. Szyszkiewicz

Well, let's start with evolution, aka "a theory in search of supporting evidence". Would you care to examine any one of the millions of examples of the fossil record? Then you could explain how it covers hundreds of millions of years of life on this planet, yet humans weren't in there until a few hundred thousand years ago. Were we beamed down from space, perhaps?

Moving on to the "starvation of those who are cognitively or otherwise disabled." I assume you're referring to Terry Schiavo. It's called *brain death* for a reason. Her heart was still beating, but her mind had long since ceased to function. She was never going to get better, the dubious medical opinion of Bill Frist notwithstanding. The lights were on, but no one was home, and hadn't been for years. Would *you* want to live like that?

As for the "same-sex marriage" argument, you're using historical precedent as a basis for how we should act in the future? Please. If you fall back on that position every time you come across some new idea that you don't like, we'd never move forward at all. What do you care if two men get married, or two women? How does that affect you in any way, shape, or form? Oh, it offends your delicate sensibilities? Too bad. Narrow-minded people offend mine, but I don't want to pass a law that makes them criminals.

I'm lumping abortion and stem cell research in one paragraph, since they seem to be the same to you. You want to explain to some parent whose child is dying from diabetes, or cystic fibrosis, or cancer, why stem cell research is wrong? You'd better bring a bullet-proof vest when you do, because when you tell one of those parents why a clump of eight cells is worth more than their living children's lives, they won't be feeling too kindly towards you at all. As for abortion, I'm passing on that one. I've had many debates with pro-life friends, and we always end up talking past each other. I'll just say that it's your choice to believe that a fetus is a person, just as it's someone else's choice to believe it's not.

DD,
You won't get an answer from Bill.

He supports the warmongering in Iraq that is getting thousands of our troops killed,yet he,at age 31,won't sign up,and join HIS cause.
They call these people Chickenhawks,DD.

Biil,and his buddies also support the Christian wingnuts who are protesting at our Military funerals.

Bill,the wingnuts in Ohio are in trouble,you should go home,and help them out.

In my proud homestate of Illinois the wingnuts don't have a prayer as usual.

Jimbo,
We will be voting the wingnuts out on Nov.7,2006.

If you're hopeing that your King,George W. Bush will come to the rescue;you are delusional with power,and you too will be "surprised".

DD No, I didn't read any of the posts responding to Brian as I made my post at 3:31 PM and it didn't get posted until about five. I was busy working.

"Sorry, but all the threats to our freedoms contained in the Constitution seem to be coming from the Right and the political party that is supposed to be all about minimizing government intrusion into our lives."

Untrue. Tipper Gore and Joe Lieberman are both prominent proponents of limiting the free speech of recording artists and broadcaster, for example. For another example see the ACLU and other organizations who have filed suit to keep valedictorians and other students from talking about their religious faith in graduation ceremonies. That should be anethema to the ACLU because it is a prior restraint, but it's not so.

I've also previously quoted instances such as the LAW in France that makes it a crime to say the holocaust wasn't state-sponsored genocide. This is not a law promoted by the right wing of French politics.

John E., I support the right of anyone to peacefully protest anything as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. I also support the rights of anyone to petition the government for redress of grievances if they feel that right has been violated.

And incidentally, those wonderful guys who are following the human garbage that protests military funerals are drowning out all their protests with the roar of their motorcycles' engines. That's the system working like it should

John E./Raving Loon/John Scanlon/whatever you're calling yourself today, I'm not originally from Ohio, I just went to college there. I'm from Pennsylvania and I plan to live the rest of my life and die here at my home in Chicago.

p.s. I'm not 31, I'm 30. Why must you make assumptions about and cast aspersions on people you don't even know?

DD, as you may be able to tell from my earlier posts I'm more concerned about the right to free speech and the "exercise thereof" portion of the religion portion of the bill of rights. I take umbrage with this statement:

"NOBODY said anything about MAKING you give up your views, no matter how boneheaded they may sound (I know that that can be said about mine as well....SO THERE! [sarcasm intended])"

Well, if what you're saying is (and I think this is it) that you can keep your views so long as you keep them to yourself and not promote them publicly, and expect our schools to tell your children they can't think that, then you're fine. DD, my friend, that's not freedom of speech.

I was against the whole Terri Schiavo mess, I think government has no business in a family's decision to pull life support from a loved one. I'm also generally for embryonic stem cell research (so long as the state isn't funding it). But when leftist politicians are able to ramrod laws into the books that say you can't protest any of these things (or abortion clinics, for that matter, actual California law that was struck down) that's the OPPOSITE of a theocon agenda at work. That's just having laws made and interpreted by the orthodox left wing to limit the rights and speech of those who disagree with them. Can we at least agree on that?

To me these "theocons," as the book calls them, came about as a reaction to judges and lawmakers that have passed and ruled in these censoring ways.

Let's face it, the theocons aren't right and the orthodox left isn't right. The truth and the best path to get along is somewhere in the middle.

Bill,I haven't made one comment to you today,I'm trying to ignore your post.

So,I'm not sure why you felt the need to lash out at me.

Bill,it's pretty bad if I'm on your mind that much.You can call me Loon or John,we're friends.

Ana,

You missed my point entirely. What I said was that none of the points raised by Mr. Linker have to do with religion. Yes, I do believe that abortion should be outlawed, that ESCR is wrong no matter how many weeping and angry parents of children with disabilities you place in front of me (especially since no one has yet come up with anything close to a cure for any disease or condition using ESCs), that gay 'marriage' is an oxymoron and a harm to society in general far beyond any mere social sensibilities, that starving cognitively and other disabled people is wrong since they have inherent dignity which isn't connected to whether or not their internal 'lights' are on, that the evolutionary theory still has holes in it and scientists are looking to close the fossil gaps (which is why the news media blare out any new fossil discovery they think does the job). However, NONE of those propositions has any necessary connection to religion. I can believe all those things and be a good agnostic or even atheist.

Hence, the country could pass laws in agreement with all of those things and there would not be a theocracy in place, contrary to what Mr. Linker and his sympaticos say. That's the point of my post.

I am no fan of President Bush. But until someone can show me proof positive (beyond the scaremongering about the recently passed law on questioning detainees, as in P Nagel's comment) that our day-to-day governmental functions have changed to make the president a dictator, or that religious believers now have powers that contradict what the Constitution allows, I will maintain my stance that the cries of "theocracy" are nothing more than fright tactics.

Until there are real deviancies in the way governmental business is conducted, talk of theocracies, monarchies, dictatorships, despotisms and other non-democratic republican ways of conducting the people's business is simply a scare tactic used by the left or the right to try to get the electorate to vote their way.

Posted by: Thomas A. Szyszkiewicz | Oct 18, 2006 3:35:04 PM

Thomas....These things happen a little at a time. We are losing time with stem cell research right now...They are chipping away at roevwade right now...the Terry Shiavo debacle...happened!

When a guy like Tom Delay gets a mug shot and wants people to see Christ in his smile....We are headed to that point.

Rich Lowry of National Review has an insightful and amusing article on "Theo-Panic":

"In the 1650s, Oliver Cromwell governed England with a cadre of major generals, establishing a kind of low-church Protestant theocracy. Catholic priests were chased from the country, and Anglican clergy were suppressed. Censorship and blue laws were tightened.

What does Cromwell's rule have to do with contemporary American political life? If your answer is anything other than "nothing," you are probably in the grip of the "theo-panic" that is sweeping precincts of the American commentariat. They warn that America is beset by raging theocrats seeking to overturn our liberal democracy.

Otherwise respectable historians, Kevin Phillips and Garry Wills, have made this charge. It is a staple of The New York Times op-ed page. It has launched a slew of books with dire warnings: by Michelle Goldberg ("high tide for theocratic fever"), by James Rubin ("an effort to change America into a Christian theocracy") and by Damon Linker ("the end of secular politics").

The theocracy charge relies mainly on blowing Christian conservative positions out of proportion. Do Christian conservatives oppose the public funding of embryo-destructive stem-cell research? Well, then, Calvin's Geneva can't be far behind. Never mind that in opposing such funding, they are usually supporting the status quo. It's a little like saying that because Democrats oppose cuts in Medicaid, they favor a dictatorship of the proletariat.

Purveyors of the theo-panic love to exaggerate the influence of the bizarre Christian Reconstructionists who actually want an American theocracy. As New York Times religion writer Peter Steinfels notes in a review of the spate of new books, Christian Reconstructionists play "a greater role in the writings of the religious right's critics than they ever have in the wider evangelical world." He notes that the flagship evangelical journal, Christianity Today, almost never shows up in these books, because, inconveniently, it is "moderate, reflective and self-questioning."

National Review senior editor Ramesh Ponnuru has pointed out that you can take all Christian conservative positions — including far-fetched ones like banning sodomy and contraception — and if they happened overnight they "would merely turn the clock back to the late 1950s. That may be a very bad idea, but the America of the 1950s was not a theocracy."

Writing in First Things, Ross Douthat explains a problem with the theo-panic, which is that the influence of institutional religion is at a low ebb: "No prelate wields the kind of authority that Catholic bishops once enjoyed over urban voters, no denomination can claim the kind of influence that once belonged to the old WASP mainline, and the evangelical Protestantism that figures so prominently in anti-theocracy tracts is distinguished precisely by its lack of any centralized ecclesiastical government."

The truth about Christian conservatives is that they support public-policy goals infused with a certain view of morality. This isn't unusual. The greatest reform movement of the 20th century — the civil-rights movement — was explicitly Christian. Today, the opposition to torture is based on a moral view that trumps all practical considerations (the inviolable dignity of the human person). A moral sense is often behind the liberal opposition to the Iraq War and to the death penalty. No one in American politics says, "I believe this is immoral and therefore should become the policy of the United States."

Some of the anti-theocracy writers claim that what sets Christian conservatives apart is that their advocacy is explicitly religious. But most of the time it isn't. Take the high-profile issue of abortion. It doesn't take any particular religious faith to think that embryos in the womb are humans deserving protection — the key claim of abortion opponents. But their critics don't want to hear it.

For such self-professed advocates of reasoned discourse, they show an appalling tendency to want to shut down the other side with their swear word of "theocracy." They are emotional, self-righteous and close-minded. They are, in short, everything they accuse Christian conservatives of being. When the theo-panic passes, maybe a few of them will regret their hysteria."

Jethro, the Democrat who called Sen. Santorum the "anti-Christ" was Pete Mathews, President of the AFSCME local in Philadelphia. He was speaking at a forum Bob Casey, Santorum's Democrat opponent, attended. The local tv station's article on this can be found at http://www.nbc10.com/politics/10099263/detail.html?rss=phi&psp=news

As can be expected, the Tribune has kept this from their readers.

The Bush administration is a train wreck, but when it comes to winning elections, you have to admit that they know how to win. They owe their election victory in both 2000 and 2004 to the religious right and the deep pockets of corporate America. The old saying that "politics makes for strange bed-fellows" is most appropriate when describing the current Bush coalition.

The coalition between the rich, arrogant, corporate elite and the extreme right-wing religious nuts was a tailor-made opportunity that was "made in heaven but cashed at the bank."

I think it's also apparent that the Republican's success at the polls in 2004 was due largely to 9/11. Would George W. Bush be the current president in the White House if there had been no 9/11? I think we all know the answer to that question!

Can Karl Rove, the "political magician," continue to pull "rabbits of a hat" and produce another Republican victory come November 7th? I doubt it, but one should never sell the "spin merchant" short. Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda chief, could have taken lessons on how to influence public opinion from Karl. Goebbels was a master at the use of the "Big Lie." Rove is the master at the use of a thousand "Little Lies."

One of the major problems that we have in this country is that we have far too many Americans who avoid mental gymnastics at all costs. They are much more interested in their six-pack of beer, and Monday night football, that they are in making a wise decision about who is going to lead them. Far too many Americans don't bother to vote. If we have a slightly better turn out than 50% of the registered voters at the polls on an election day, we are convinced that our system is running smoothly.

Maybe we don't deserve the freedoms that we have? The Bushites have continuously chipped away at our rock of freedom and many Americans have written it off as simply a price that we must pay for home security; a price that we must pay to defeat terrorism.

Don't forget to vote on November 7th. The survival of our Democratic Republic depends upon it!

Bruce,
A) When are you gonna have an original thought and not post articles from conservative pundits?, B) A local union official is not a "prominent" Democratic supporter. You are desperate

"A local union official is not a "prominent" Democratic supporter. You are desperate"

Pshaw, another clueless liberal!!! The unions are the #1 financial supporters of the Democrats. Pete Matthews is not a LOCAL resident he is a COUNCIL president and they can be big players in state politics. AFSCME are huge donators to federal, state and local races and they basically "made" Blago when he ran for governor with their early endorsement and contributions to his campaign.

Again, it should be a requirement to have some knowledge of what you are talking about before you post on this board....

Great. Thank you all for your comments, I knew there would be many. And, I knew there would be many comments made based on what those of you on the left assume you know about Christianity and conservative Christian views. Just as you are concerned about the "Theo-con threat" I wanted to point out the concern among Christians about the threat to our religous freedom posed by those of you who advocate ultra-liberal views. I do not believe our government should endorse one religion over another, and I have not seen that happening under the Bush administration despite the Left's hysteria. What I have seen, however, is a growing intolerance of Christian viewpoints. I have seen regular attacks by the left on one of the world's great religions, practiced by many. I see Christian views attacked regularly on TV and in the news and nobody blinks an eye. But, one negative word about Islam or Judaism and look out! I have also read many articles reporting on children who have attempted to pray for their own meals at school, and have been told that they are not allowed to do so or are even suspended. While I don't think prayer should be forced upon anyone in school, it certainly should be (and legally is) allowed on an individual basis. I never said "Christian right" viewpoints have become illegal, but from the angry-left rhetoric I think it's reasonable for me to be concerned that that's the path the left would like to see us take.

LOL - I just read all your comments again. Let's see, I was accused of using Fox News or RNC talking points, being a "neo-con who doesn't have a clue," accused of assuming that my religious freedoms are currently restricted (not what I said...thanks for reading carefully), accused of hating homosexuals (did I say that? No.), accused of supporting those boneheads who protest at funerals (well, that was from John E., who doesn't really count in this or any other discussion in The Swamp), accused of wanting to impose my beliefs on you and the rest of the country, and more than I want to bother to list. All of those comments were based on your left-wing assumptions of what those of us who are conservative and Christian believe. Why is it so difficult for you to understand that there are many on the right, religious or not, who have a principled and well thought out view on an issue? As usual, when I disagree with the left all I get is angry insults and assumptions.

chris,
I stand my my post. Bruce insinuated that the Democrat who made that comment was a national figure when he added the label "prominent". As the link says in the first line of the story, he is a local union official. Have you heard of that "prominent" scumbag?

These things happen a little at a time. We are losing time with stem cell research right now...They are chipping away at roevwade right now...the Terry Shiavo debacle...happened!

When a guy like Tom Delay gets a mug shot and wants people to see Christ in his smile....We are headed to that point.
Posted by: bill r. | Oct 19, 2006 7:22:53 AM

Let me get this straight, Bill -- because some people say that it's not right to kill the unborn or experiment on tiny human persons or starve the disabled to death, and one crooked pol out of some 500+ other pols representing us on the federal level wants people to see Christ in his smile -- all of these are somehow or other constitutive or indicative of a current or future theocracy? I'm missing the logic and, so far, no one has been able to fill in the missing pieces for me.

Again my point is being missed and I'm unsure how to say it any more plainly. If Roe v. Wade falls, if embryonic stem cell research remains unfunded by taxpayers (it's getting plenty of private funding and is continuing to be done in this country legally and there's no move to try to make it illegal), if starving disabled people to death is not allowed (remember that despite the debacle, Terri is still dead -- starved to death by her own husband) -- none of this points to a theocracy. They point to common sense laws that are for the common good, that good being human life. That is something worth protecting by law, no matter how small or disabled that life is -- and you don't have to be religious to think that way.

Recall that prior to the 1960's, none of this stuff was allowed. But from what I remember of my history lessons, no one accused any of those administrations, most of which were Democratic, of theocracy.

"NONE of those propositions has any necessary connection to religion."

- Posted by: Thomas A. Szyszkiewicz

I understand what you're saying. Really, I do. You have very lucid arguments. However, I'll point out that the vast majority of people who want to outlaw abortion and stem cell research, who don't believe evolution is true, and who disapprove of the right-to-die, are also religious conservatives. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

"The U.S. government would take on more of the qualities of a theocracy, and dissent would not be as freely tolerated as it is now."

This is my favorite quote. Dissent from what?

Sounds like you lefties aren't too into dissent of abortion, global warming, gay marraige or evolution being taught along with intel design.

Basically this guy is complaining that by dissenting against left wing opinions, The Religious right will endanger any dissent.

Don't you see the irony in all of this?

Hello all,

Understanding why religion is strong delusion

Christians often quote things like "know them by their fruits," yet after millennia of being duped into abetting blatantly evil scoundrels, many still don't understand the meaning or import of much of what they read. The same canon paradoxically propounds "faith," which means the complete opposite of "know them by their fruits," i.e., to discern the truth by analyzing deeds and results (works) and to weigh actions instead of merely believing what is said.

The deceptive circular logic of posing a fantasy messiah who urges both discernment of the truth and faith (belief without proof) clearly represents a skillful and purposeful effort to impose ignorance and confusion through "strong delusion." Any sage worth his salt could understand the folly of this contradictory so-called wisdom. This and mountains of evidence demonstrate that faith and religion are the opposite of truth and wisdom. It is no wonder charlatans like Rove, Bush, and others have marked Christians as dupes to be milked as long and as hard as possible. Any accomplished con artist easily recognizes religion as the ultimate scam and fervent followers as ready-made marks and dupes.

We now live in an era where science has proven so much about the vastness, rationality, mathematical preciseness, and structural orderliness throughout every level of our 11-dimension universe. Nonetheless, large percentages of people still conclude that these flawed and contradictory religious canons are the unmodified and infallible "word of God." People who can't (or won't) discern the difference between truth and belief are easily misled about the differences between good and evil, wisdom and folly, perfection and error, reason and irrationality, and right and wrong.

The fact that political leaders have always had close relationships with religious leaders while cooperating to manipulate followers to gain wealth and power is overwhelming evidence that the true purpose of religion is deception and delusion. People who are unable to effectively discern basic moral choices or to reason accurately are easily indoctrinated to follow the dictates of national and imperial leaders who wrap themselves in religious pretense. Truth and wisdom are direct threats to the existence and power of empires. That is why imperial leaders always strive to hide so-called secret knowledge and impose deception and ignorance upon their subjects.

What then is the purpose of "faith" but to prevent otherwise good people from seeking to understand truth and wisdom?

Read More...