August 23, 2005
Darrell Whitchurch
"Murder!," the preacher cried.
I’m sure by now most of you have
heard the latest vitriol from the Rev. Pat Robinson. "Let's kill the
duly-elected leader of one of our neighbors." What happened to
commandment #6? He and his type seem to find waivers for the "Big Ten"
any time they want to, but allow no wiggle room for anyone else to have
a personal conscience.
Rev. Pat needs to get a dictionary as
well as a new Bible. Accusations of Chavez supporting Islamist and
Commie terrorists are bogus. Chavez is a Socialist. He is not an
Islamist or Communist, which are mutually non-compatible. You cannot be
a secular leftist and a religious zealot at the same time. Two totally
different concepts.
When the Far Right tries to defend this
"Christian Leader,” they talk about what a terrible dictator Chavez is.
Reality check. Chavez was elected by the impoverished people of his
country. He thinks--as the Socialist he admits to being--that the
wealth of the country should belong to the citizens. Not to the
multi-national Big Oil Barons. What a concept. He doesn’t take orders
from the CIA or sell out his people for cash, as most of the previous
leaders of the area have done.
Robertson has a history of
extremism. By his own mouth, he said people like me should not be
allowed to vote or hold office. To quote Gandhi: “If not for
Christians, I could be one.”
Christians like him do a disservice to others of their faith and the whole country.
Monday, July 04, 2005
Bob Moore
At church on July 2 we prayed for our troops
in combat and we recognized our current and past military. That is a
good thing and it is proper to pray for safety for those who are in
harm’s way. I was mildly distressed at how we got there though. A brief
mention of the lack of freedom of religious expression was quickly
followed by gratitude for those who have sacrificed to ensure that we
have that freedom. Still OK but we’re starting to drift here. Then a
statement was made that equated the service in the wars in Afghanistan
and Iraq with those who served in defense of the principles for which
our country is noted.
Now we have gone too far. We have asked God’s blessings for our military and asserted that we are doing God’s work.
This
is the message that the current administration has allowed to be
propagated and the Christian Right has asserted. It is a message of
obfuscation and misdirection which is the same tactic used from the
onset. The President used it during his last address by tying 9/11 and
the war in Iraq together.
What dismays me is that so many will
blindly accept this assertion and others will accept it with eyes wide
open because it suits their ideology. It is a message that is parroted
(loudly) by what is a minority of Americans who are very successful
because they are loud and insistent. Those of us who are open to
reasonable discussion will be overwhelmed by the noise if we do not
exhibit the resolve and willingness to confront the shouters. A
reasonable voice will triumph only if it perseveres.
Bob Moore
Christian Progressive
A response from a Christian Progressive
Well said !! Of course it is all true and quite logical. Unfortunately we
are not dealing with logical people. I have broached each of these things
with my Christian brothers and sisters and they say all they want is for
Christians to be given the same rights that pagans have. When I point out
how the separation of church and state protects us from being persecuted
they point out that our nation was founded by Christians and they meant for
Christian law to prevail. When I point out that our founders were to a
large degree NOT Christians they react with disbelief. The problem is that
they do not want to be logical or reasonable. What they want is for their
children to not be taught evolution. They want to hold that homosexuality
is to be punished and abortion not permitted at all. They want public
institutions to reflect their belief and everyone else be damned whether it
is constitutional or not. After all, the constitution was written by
Christians.
Having said all this it remains to be said that it will do no good to
confront them directly or angrily. We must find our way back to the middle
ground that has allowed our country to prosper with all faiths and beliefs
being represented. We will not do that without reasonable people with whom
we can build alliances. We have a long distance to go having allowed this
movement to gain strength without challenge. Now it is being used
politically for personal gain and is given a great deal of air time. It is
up to us to begin to reason with the people that will reason. There will
always be those who are on the far right that we will never reach and they
should be allowed to exist in whatever nook or cranny they can find. We will
gain nothing by fighting fire with fire, we will only get a bigger fire.
I have thought it seems obsessively since the election on what to do. One
thing we must do, and this is said by serious political students everywhere,
is to develop a quotable, brief description of who we are. We must claim
Christianity as our own and show that the right has a Pharisaical view of
the faith. It occurs to me that perhaps we need to take a page from our
past and begin to use the term "Progressive" rather than liberal. You know,
I do not consider myself a liberal although I certainly fit the description
as set forth by the right. Progressivism is an old idea of the party, one
that can still apply in terms of improving the lot of citizens nationwide no
matter what the class. If that be class warfare then so be it.
I am angry also at the religious right. Problem is I go to church with them
and agree with most of the theology. I do not believe that Jesus meant for
us to use a political sledgehammer to win people to Him. That was tried
about 400 to 500 years ago in the Americas and about 500 years earlier with
the crusades. Neither has proven very successful.
The greater problem is the lack of reasonable and civil discourse over the
concerns of the republic. Talk radio, Faux News, etc. make millions by
fostering anger and hatred. Someone has to be visionary enough to turn that
around and expose those cretins for who they are. Might as well be you and
me.
Darrell Whitchurch
Gatlinburg TN
YES, Christians do have rights.
They have the right to attend the church of their choice. They
have the right to pray. They have the right to teach THEIR children to
pray. They have the right to get them out of bed thirty minutes earlier
in the morning to pray with them. They have the right to pray with them
before meals. They have the right to take them to any church that
pleases them. They have the right to take them to Sunday school. They
have the right to home school or to enroll them in a private church
school. They do not have the right to teach my children how to pray or
what to believe.
They have the right to post the Ten Commandments anywhere they please
on THEIR property. They can post them inside their churches. They can
put large monuments in front of their churches. They can post them in
their home or on their front yard. They do not have the right to put
them in my courthouse. If the only time a person is exposed to the
commandments in when going into the courthouse when charged with a
felony or when heâs being sued itâs probably a little late
anyway.
Historically Americasâ Constitution and laws are not
based on Christian beliefs the Bible or the Ten Commandments. They are
based on English Common Law and the Magna Carta. Our founders were very
much aware of excesses and abuses that arose in England and the rest of
Europe when Church and State intermingled. Escaping those very abuses
was just one of the reasons that brought many of them to the New World.
Only two of the commandments have anything to do with civil law:
donât kill and don't steal. The others are all of a moral or
theological nature. Thatâs good, each of us can interpret them as
we feel they are meant to be followed. There is some difference of
opinion among Christians and others about keeping the Sabbath and about
graven images.
I have no interest is seeing my country become a "Christian
Nation." We are one Nation with many faiths. I would challenge anyone
to name just one Theocracy that they would choose to live under. Church
run states such as Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Egypt,
Afghanistan, Pakistan and others simply lack the tolerance found in a
pluralistic society. Christian nations such as Ireland, Spain and Italy
have no attraction for me. Even in our own country Christians are
divided as to just which church group is really Christian. In some
parts of America Catholics and Mormons are suspect minorities.
Buddhist, Muslims and other followers of eastern faiths are definitely
outside the pale and even Baptists disagree among themselves over who
is really praying right. Itâs a sin for members of one church to
drink a beer with lunch and not for members of others. Music in church
is a major problem for some. Where do women fit in the house of God, or
heaven forbid gays? Where do these various churches stand on birth
control? Just when is the Sabbath? Is it Saturday or Sunday? Does it
start on Friday evening? Should the Government decide?
Zealots of any religious stripe are rather scary. Be it the
Mullahs or Imams we are now at war with or Bob Jones, Jerry Falwell,
Pat Robertson and others of the new Christian Taliban. If you oppose
their religious or political views they say you hate God or Christ. I
do not as Rev Bob Jones said, "despise your Christ", (heâs mine
too) or religion but I do reserve the right to oppose the far right.
And whether the religious wars in America are fought with words,
bullets or ballots, which church will run the State? In the South, it
will almost assuredly be Baptist. In the Northeast, Catholic. In the
West, it may be Mormon. And there is the risk of one of your children
getting a great job offer in Utah or Boston. Do you want a Catholic or
Mormon teaching your grandchildren how to pray? Or would you rather see
it remain a family issue? We are now at war with religious zealots who
want to impose a Theocracy on their countrymen. Why in the world would
we want to impose a Theocracy on ourselves?
I have at different times been part of the majority and part
of the minority. Raised a Catholic I have lived in parts of the country
where there was a Catholic Church in every neighborhood. I have also
lived where they were rare and considered outside the mainstream. One
of my sons was asked by a second grade teacher "Why did his parents
want him to go to Hell?" Both were harassed in high school to join
"the" prayer group. They needed to be saved because they belonged to
the wrong church. A parent once called our home to tell my wife that my
son should not speak to their daughter because they did not want her
talking to a Catholic. A young lady in tears called one of my sons. She
had just been told by her minister that her boy friend was going to
Hell because he was Catholic. I have experienced a certain lack of
tolerance in rural Christian America. Even the Bible enjoins us to pray
quietly in our closets and private rooms as opposed to ranting on the
street corner.
Letâs continue as we have in the past. Separation of
church and state works. Pray as you feel is proper. Teach your children
what you feel is right. Be tolerant of your neighborâs beliefs.
Do not compel anyone to follow your path. Respect others even when you
think they may be mistaken or wrong.
Yes, Christians have rights and so do the rest of us, even other Christians.
|
Jim Anderson
THAT OLD RUGGED CROSS
by Arthur Dimmesdale
October 10, 2005
Is the road to Wears Valley paved with good intentions?
The
righteous people of the First Baptist Church of Pigeon Forge worked
exceeding hard and devoutly to raise at least $75,000 for construction
of a 110-foot tall cross on a hillside in the formerly-scenic area of
Wears Valley. The cross is traditional and historically authentic--a
steel structure with a metal exterior, just like in the Bible.
The
city officials of Pigeon Forge said that's just fine. Although the city
of Pigeon Forge restricts the height of home structures to about 85
feet, it makes exceptions for church spires, flagpoles, and monuments.
The Board of Zoning Appeals ruled that the cross constituted a monument
and approved the construction.
Regrettably, a number of outsider
trouble-makers and satan-worshipping witches have offensively
complained about the cross, for various ridiculous and sinful reasons.
For
instance, the Reverend Bartholomew Dooright has been going around
quoting the Bible, saying God was against the worship of idols.
Dooright is a well-known, infamous “progressive” who believes the true
basis of Christianity is not monuments, towers, and ceremony but
everyday good deeds. Dooright recently went too far, when he quoted
Deuteronomy 27:15, “Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten
image, an abomination unto the Lord.” White House counselor Dan
Bartlett actually phoned in his sympathies from Washington to say the
Reverend was taking the Lord's words “out of context,” but Bartlett
could comment no further until all the current investigations have been
completed.
The American Civil Liberties Union, as usual, has
gotten into the act, too. The ACLU has cited prior case law to assert
that construction of the Wears Valley Cross sets a precedent opening
the floodgates down a slippery slope beyond the pale. Thus, an imminent
legal ruling is expected that will force Pigeon Forge to allow
comparable “freedom-of-expression” monuments by other local groups, as
well.
Rumors are spreading that a newly-organized group of
religious skeptics and non-believers has started a county-wide
fund-raising drive to build a giant 110-foot tall “Question Mark”
nearby in Wears Valley, with the inscription, “Who Knows?” The Pigeon
Forge Baptists are naturally outraged.
Seizing upon any
money-making possibilities from this new trend, the opportunistic
Pigeon Forge Chamber of Commerce is now debating the pros and cons of
building a symbolic 110-foot “Dollar Sign” in Wears Valley, to
commemorate the true values of the community. Bubba Redblood was quoted
as saying, “We've already had juicy offers from Cingular, Verizon, and
Cellular One, who'll pay handsomely to let our giant Dollar Sign double
as a mobile cell tower--can you hear me, now?”
Naturally, this
sensitive issue is being politicized, too. While the feckless local
Democrats are trying to decide what they stand for, the Republicans
have jumped into the fray. They are plotting to construct a mammoth
110-foot gold monument in honor of our beloved president, George W.
Bush. The only debate left is to decide on the most appropriate symbol
for depicting George W. Bush. Should it be a giant Smirk, a Minus Sign
drenched in red ink, or a Flipping Finger? A giant “W” was considered
too trite and obvious. So far, the biggest consensus seems to be that
the best symbol for George Bush would be a gigantic 110-foot tall
“Zero.”
Stay tuned for more information, to be reported immediately as this fast-breaking story develops.
October, 2005
Donna Strickland
I would like to make this observation about Chapter 5 of Charles Derbers book Hidden Power:
Derbers
comments about the divide between Reds and Blues reminded me of Graham
Leonard's insights. Graham said that one of the most important long
term solutions to the world peace problem is to teach children critical
thinking skills.
Derber says that Reds pride themselves on their
acceptance of religious and political authority and they are threatened
by the value Blues place on complexity and critical thinking.
I have
heard the same from some of my conservative brothers and sisters right
here in Sevier County. They say that Bush is a man of God and therefore
his decision making must be "of God" and that is all they need to know.
They just trust and follow.
I understand that this just trust and
follow method is also the basis for faith. People who have faith in God
do not need proof. They just trust and follow.
But I had a
conversation with my God just this morning and he said that my faith in
God was a whole lot different than my faith in America's leaders. Trust
and follow can be a dangerous thing. I choose to apply my critical
thinking skills and I KNOW God is OK with that.
God
gave all humans the gifts of human reason and free will . . . so we
could tell the difference between hearing God's own majestic voice and
voting for a misguided fool.
Erik Plakanis
Friday, August 26, 2005
Sometimes
an outside perspective helps. This one comes from the Toronto Star. It
proposes a unified theory of everthing stupid Bush does. I am a
believer!
What Boneheaded Design Guides Dubya's Moves?
by Linwood Barclay
How
does one explain all the misguided, unwise, sometimes outright
boneheaded things the Bush administration has done since taking over
nearly five years ago, and continues to do on a pretty much daily
basis? How is it possible for a group of supposedly intelligent,
experienced individuals to take this many wrong turns? Wouldn't you
think that once in a while, even by accident, that George W. Bush and
his advisers would make a decision that made sense?
Can this
much mismanagement happen totally at random? Would the occupants of the
Bush White House have us believe that all these things, these missteps,
these miscalculations, these attempts to deceive, that they all, you
know, just kind of happened?
I'm not so sure. And I'm not the
only one starting to ask questions. More and more, it seems unlikely
that mere human beings could make this many mistakes without some sort
of misguiding force, a kind of supernatural
entity that has trouble remembering where it put its car keys.
That's where unintelligent design comes in.
Once
one embraces the concept of unintelligent design " a kind of
doofus-like cosmic force " it becomes much easier to get your head
around the operations of the Bush administration.
I mean,
making executive decisions randomly would still probably result in
doing the right thing 50 per cent of the time. So how does one explain
such consistent goofiness, like invading a nation based on evidence that
the administration knew didn't exist in the first place?
Or exposing a CIA employee's identity just to settle some personal scores?
Ignoring international trade agreements you've signed on to?
Adopting a head-in-the-sand approach to the connection between human activity on the planet Earth and global warming?
Letting
the boss be photographed on the ranch, golfing and cutting brush and
chilling out and generally having a good ol' time while young Americans
die overseas?
Not having the media savvy to have that same
boss take a stroll down the driveway and chat with a woman whose son
was one of those young Americans?
Doing an end run around the Senate to send a loose cannon to the U.N., while supposedly promoting democracy abroad?
Not firing a defence secretary who totally misjudged how many troops would be needed to secure Iraq?
Giving rich folks back home huge tax cuts while soldiers go without adequate body armour?
Looking
upon scientific and medical innovations like they're some sort of
voodoo and letting other nations take the lead in these areas for the
first time?
You can't tell me that some magnificently dumb
force, more confused and baffled than all the members of the Bush
administration put together, didn't have a hand in this.
But I
know what some of you skeptical types are thinking. You're thinking,
hey pal, where's your proof? Where's the actual evidence, the cold,
hard facts, to support my contention that unintelligent design has
played a role in the decisions of the Bush administration?
Well,
that's easy. I have none. Not one shred of solid evidence. But let me
ask you this. What evidence do you have that I'm wrong? My theory
explaining Bush White House screwups is, by its very nature, impossible
to disprove. And if you can't disprove it, then you don't have much choice but to consider it as an alternative.
That's
why I'm pushing to have universities start teaching my unintelligent
design theory in their political science courses. Sure, these
know-it-all professors may be teaching that Bush and his ilk do what
they do because they're captives of their own ideology, that they're
pandering to baser instincts and popular prejudices to shore up support
among certain constituencies, that they're willing to put their own
political interests ahead of those of regular Americans.
Yeah, well, maybe. But my theory doesn't take as long to explain on the final.
"Learning from the Loss"
by Tom Hayden, Alternet
8 November 2004
"The
Democratic Party will have to cast off its timidity to say what needs
to be said . . . This is not time for the Democrats to be pandering to
any of the Christian Right who have turned Jesus into a symbol for a
vast and potentially illegal political network of tax-exempt,
church-based, right-wing partisan activism.
"Jesus was a dissident on the fringes of the Empire of his
day. As Father Gregory Boyle says, 'Jesus stood with everybody that was
nobody. He made a beeline [always] to stand with those on the margins,
those whose dignity had been denied, the poor and the excluded, the
easily despised, the demonized, and those whose burdens were more than
they could bear. And they killed him for it.' Father Luis Barrios
agrees, saying that the historical Jesus was ignored by the authorities
until 'he went downtown' to challenge the elite."
FULL ARTICLE: See
alternet .org
|
