Monday, June 12, 2006
Perspective
I was having a conversation with a friend today who seems to think that the biggest threat to the security of our country is the Christian Right. Now, being a catholic, I am not one to defend the Christian Right (it's not polite) however, I could not believe what I was hearing. "Christians are a threat to the security of our country?" I asked him incredulously. Finding Christians annoying is one thing. Finding them a threat to our nation's security is downright stupid. So I asked him "Why? Because Christians are flying planes into buildings? Or threatening to blow up Sony Studios in LA because of THE DAVINCI CODE?". As you could have guessed, he avoided my questions and just went on and on about how Pat Robertson is a moron. I find it terribly sad that many on the left can't see the difference between someone at work who sends you a note saying "Jesus Loves You" as opposed to someone who tries to instill their world view on you by holding you hostage and cutting your head off. He must have been out of town on 9/11. Or missed the news reports about the bombings in Spain and Great Britain. Perhaps he was at Starbucks drinking a non-fat decaf latte when Nicholas Berg got his head cut off. There is a threat to our national security. It's called Radical Islam. The left needs to get some perspective.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
sounds like your friend is sadly misguided. calling the christian right a threat to national security makes no sense. perhaps your friend avoided answering your question because he/she doesn't really think of these religious extremist as a threat to national security. no doubt, ralph reed and pat robertson are hopelessly disconnected from reality.
questioning why a religious group needs to be so intertwined in politics would be the more interesting position to take. the fundamentalist christian right movement is a menace. but more importantly you should be examining the fact that politics and religion shouldn't be mixed.
the christian right movement can justify every position they take with a quote from the bible. amazing how the bible talks to everything from gay marriage to religion in the classrooms.
as much as i think that using religion in this way could lead to an extremely unhealthy long term condition of national division, i think the reality is that our country is generally becoming less and less interested in religion.
you say the real threat is radical islam. sure, why not? they are a genuine menace! after all they want to destroy more than big buildings and cut off peoples heads. these people are against jews, freedom of speech, multiparty political system, gays, democratic system of voting, accountable government, women's rights, pluralism, secularism, short skirts, dancing, beardlessness, evolution theory, sex and on and on and on.
the christian right doesn't have a problem with beardlessness, but except for that, there are an awful lot of similarities!
it makes no sense to fight a religious fanatical group abroad while letting one spew the same crap here in our own country.
the united states must remain a place of freedom, enlightenment and liberation from stale constricting dogmas. it's scary to think of our country giving up reason in place of holy books, and placing religion above a unified human community of accepting differences.
Most christians do not oppose freedom of speech, multiparty political systems, democratic systems of voting, accountable government, women's rights, pluralism, shorts skirts, dancing, or sex. They definitely do not oppose Jews. The strongest supporters of Israel are religious christians. Yes, most believing christians oppose gay marriage (as does 75% of the people in this country). This is just nonsense..and precisely what I am talking about. Most on the left lately are projecting the sins of Radical Islam on Christianity...and it's pathetic. And if they don't wise up...they will long for the day when religious christians were their biggest problem.
Catholics aren't the christian right, for the most part...
tess - trying to keep a focus here. i said the christian right, not all christians. big distinction.
not only does the christan right relegate women to hearth and home, they're certainly anti-semetic! ask their leaders pat robertson and ralph reed what they think of jews. and the only reason these two morons support israel is because for them the jews return to israel is a precursor to the second coming. don't get me wrong, it's great they support israel, but it's for a pretty sleazy reason.
the christian right, which includes evangelical christians like the idiot we have in the white house, threaten jews at many levels. they represent an effort to use government to achieve that which religion should achieve in the open marketplace and not manipulated under the guise of "faith based initiatives."
Faith based iniatives are not just christian, they include all religions. Yes, a small minority of christians support Israel for messianic reasons. However, I would say that the majority support Israel for other reasons. For istance, some would rather have Jews in control of the Holy Land than the muslims, since they are much more equitable with Christian pilgrimages to Holy Sites. Some support Israel because they see Israel as a strategic ally in the war on terror. That many Jews see the Christian community today as ant-semitic is more of a reflection on what Jews are being taught,than reality.
I am concerned over many on the christian right's use of government. However, I think the threat is exaggerated. To fight for ones values is the American way. And Christians have the right to fight to see the culture reflect their values, just as many on the left have the right to fight for their values. It's called pluralism.
So, the Christian Right is the equivalent of the Taliban? Precisely my point. Can't criticize 9/11 widows or global warming, but it's perfectly okay to liken the Christian Right to a fanatical religious movement responsible for mass murder. Gotcha! As for "politicizing their ideas into the constitution"..well, if the left hadn't sidestepped the democratic process with abortion by going to the Supreme Court, they would feel no need to add amendments to the constitution. And FYI, there have been 27 amendments to the constitution.
I do not support amending the constitution on gay marriage. I was simply stating why the attempt was made. Whenever people on the left can't win public support, they use the courts. That's fine. That's their right. But, so is soliciting legislators to amend the constitution. Abortion is a much more serious issue, because a life is taken. Maybe your "morals" compass doesn't have a problem with that. But many see the role of gov't to protect the weak and innocent. The country never got to debate the issue because a dogma was handed down by the supreme court. This one decision has politicized the courts for over thirty years, which I think has damaged the institution. It was designed to be the one branch of gov't that wasn't political. I don't think our nation has recovered from Roe. Like the Dred Scott decision, it polarized the nation. When it comes to issues that radically change our culture (like our understanding of marriage), we need to have a national debate. The issue should not be rushed.
and whenever people on the right can't win public support they go to the ignorant masses.
i'm not sure how you priortize the importance of issues and i'm not saying the controversy over abortion isn't a serious one, it certainly is. but to many people, the right to get married is important. and it's pathetic that marriage has to be politicized because the religious right can't get past the whole gay thing. give me a break. the religious right should be happy that two people can fall in love and make a life together. who cares if it's two men or two women - love is love and the world should have more of it and it doesn't matter what form it takes. what are they so afraid of?
take off your rose colored glasses - the courts have been politicized for ages. you leave out one recent example of the courts making a polarizing decision based on politics - gore v. bush. it doesn't get more blatant than that.
a national debate on gay marriage? for what? if two heterosexual adults can be legally recognized in the form of a marriage to homosexual adults shoud be afforded the same luxury. our current system creates classes, not a whole lot different than a "blacks" water fountain and "whites" water fountain.
and how could the issue be rushed? it's not the the whole "gay" thing is a new concept!
How do we go from accusing the Christian Right of being terrorists to gay marriage? Oy!Why should we not rush it? Because during the last election, over 75% of the American public aired their views on the issues and declared they were against it. For the left to go to the courts and force feed this issue down the throats of people will be a disaster. That amendment will be passed faster than you can say Barney Frank. As for leftinsf statement about abortion, you CAN'T have it both ways. If you are against abortion, then you believe it is taking a human life. And if it is taking a human life, you can't say "well, if some people don't have a problem with that, then who am I to say anything. That's their choice". Uh, no. No one has the "choice" to end a human life.
Post a Comment