Incoming from the Big Giant Head!

Meet your new White House spokesman,

Scott McClellan

  (Notes Kevin: "His name...? Like we care. He's a LIAR!")

 

---

Comments

---

 

Posted Tue, 24 Jun 2003 02:24:59 GMT

Christopher Key:

 

Yeah?  How do we know that's his real name?

 

---

 

Posted Tue, 24 Jun 2003 03:05:24 GMT

doublethink:

 

Shhhhh -- don't tell anybody, but I think his real name is Legion.

 

Posted 4:52:48 PM   Send comment

---

Finally, Some Good News from Jerusalem

Despite the fact that right wing Orthodox Jews set fire to rainbow flags last week, and the lesbian and gay Pride march had to be postponed due to a suicide bomb, last Friday's Pride parade took place without significant incident.

 

This was the 2nd Gay Pride parade in Jerusalem and as thousands of supporters gathered in Safra Square they observed a minute's silence for Al Bier, The Jerusalem Open House board member who was killed along with 16 others in June 11's suicide bombing in the city. ...

 

The march concluded at Independence Park after wending its way through Jaffa Street, Shlomo Hamelech and Agron. ...

 

Avraham Poraz, Israel's Interior minister, leant his support to those taking part saying: "There are a few ministers in the Government who aren't happy that I'm taking part in this event, but despite that I have come to wish you a happy holiday. We are all proud of you."

 

Poraz was the senior minister ever to address a Pride Parade in the country.

 

There were some protests from ultra-Orthodox right wingers, but in the main, the event passed without incident.

 

Gay Pride passes peacefully in Jerusalem

Gay.com UK

June 23, 2003

 

Yeah, I know, I come down hard on Israel for the whole Palestinian mess, but as a homo myself, I'm acutely aware of the country's superb equal rights for lesbians and gay men, which far surpass the kick-in-the-nuts style of American intolerant-tolerance. For one thing, Israel is one of 15 countries which extend the same immigration rights to same-sex couples as enjoyed by heterosexual couples; i.e., if you're queer, you can sponsor your foreign-born partner for immigration to your country.

 

Not, of course, if you're an American; shamefully, the puritanical U.S. lags light-years behind Israel, as well as Australia, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, in this department. And that's despite the introduction by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) of the Permanent Partners Immigration Act (PPIA) to the House, where it's been languishing for more than three years.

 

If you'd like to help drag the United States, kicking and screaming, into the twenty-first century (or just learn more about the raw deal handed to same-sex couples in which one partner is American and the other isn't, as well as the uniquely intense emotional pain involved), a terrific starting place is Free American Immigration Rights.

 

Hey, folks, we're not talking about "special rights"; all we want is equal rights.

 

As Laurence R. Helfer noted in an op/ed this week: "Disparities in the legal treatment of lesbians and gay men in the United States and their treatment in the rest of the world are becoming more pronounced. As the United States Supreme Court considers an important gay rights case, expected to be decided this month, it should realize that much of the globe sees the issue as a matter of basic human rights."

 

Basic human rights. Period.

 

It's about time the U.S. start treating all its citizens like human beings. Second- (or third-) class status was supposed to have been eliminated with abolition and women's suffrage.

 

But practice doesn't always follow theory. Ask any African-American. Or any woman.

 

---

Comments

---

 

Posted Tue, 24 Jun 2003 18:28:49 GMT

Julie:

 

The fact that we don't offer homosexual couples equal rights is ridiculous. Who exactly decided that women and men had to be together only? Of course the extreme Christian right wing would say god did in the bible but it is all open to how it is interpreted. Love is love. It is a special thing between two people. Not just man and woman but between any two HUMANS. Of course this is just another thing that the right wingers try to justify and always look like idiots when they try to argue their point because there just isn't a good or valid one period.

 

Posted 4:30:59 PM   Send comment

---

Forget World Domination - Let's Conquer the Universe!

Revealed: US plan to 'own' space: It sounds like the stuff of the darkest sci-fi fantasies, but it's not. The Air Force Space Command Strategic Master Plan is a clear statement of the US's intention to dominate the world by turning space into the crucial battlefield of the 21st century. [Sunday Herald, June 22, 2003]

 

Posted 3:57:45 PM   Send comment

---

So We Murdered Another One, Eh?

The U.S. military said on Monday it was investigating the death in custody at the weekend of an Afghan detained last week in the east of the country.

 

The man died of "unknown causes" on Saturday in a U.S.-managed holding centre near Asadabad in Kunar province, said a statement from the U.S. military headquarters in Afghanistan.

 

It said the man had been detained last Wednesday and held at the centre until his death.

 

US military says another Afghan dies in custody

Reuters

June 23, 2003

 

Gosh, it couldn't be that we beat another Afghan to death, could it? What, you don't remember those two Afghans killed during "generally accepted interrogation techniques" at the U.S. base at Bagram? You know, the ones dead from "blunt force injuries," whose death certificates had the "homicide" box ticked, even though the Pentagon said "that the choice of 'homicide' did not necessarily mean that the dead person had been unlawfully killed."

 

I'm reminded of a Washington Post piece from 1997, "How the Cradle of Liberty Became a Slave-Owning Nation":

 

In 1669... the colonial Virginia Assembly declared that, if a Negro slave died at the hands of a master who used "extremity of correction" to overcome the slave's "obstinacy," it was not murder. In "An act about the casuall killing of slaves," lawmakers reasoned that no man would deliberately destroy his own property.

 

See, that's the sort of thinking that comes from the dehumanization of human beings.

 

You can call it whatever you like; where I come from, beating somebody to death is still called murder.

 

---

Comments

---

 

Posted Tue, 24 Jun 2003 18:22:51 GMT

Julie:

 

Of course it is murder. The secrecy and injustice they are giving these people is ridiculous. Isn't this country based on innocent until proven guilty and other such nice little saying that aren't backed up very well? Why because these people are a certain religion/race/creed/color are they not being given a fair trial or even humane treatment. Oh can you imagine if Iraqi's starting rounding up Americans over there and putting them in camps like the ones we are utilizing what kind of uproar there would be? Disgusting.

 

Posted 3:51:43 PM   Send comment

---

Idiot of the Week: Paul Dean

Never let it be said that I gloss over incidents that might reflect badly on my favorite politicos. To cut to the chase: Paul Dean, the 17-year-old son of Dr. Howard Dean (my great hope for the '04 election), was involved in a burglary over the weekend. Apparently, he played getaway driver while four "friends" broke into a Vermont country club to steal booze.

 

I'm tempted to spout off a litany of epithets at Paul Dean that only begin with the word "idiot," and end with a harsh scolding about the risk of undermining his father's presidential campaign -- but I expect the good doctor doesn't need my help in that department. From the CNN story linked above: "Speaking on NBC's 'Meet the Press,' the former Vermont governor -- who Monday plans to formally announce his candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination in Burlington -- said it was 'a very, very difficult weekend' at the Dean home. 'I'm not very happy about it,' he said. 'I think that 17-year-olds sometimes do extraordinarily foolish things, and this is one of them. He's going to have to pay the price.' Dean said his son was 'more than grounded' and would go through the judicial system to the end. ... [Dean] encouraged the police to release details on the incident and asked that his son receive no special treatment."

 

Good for you, Dr. Dean! If only the Bush family knew something about "tough love" (and could restrain themselves from obstructing justice interfering with a legal system that might have taught multiple generations of out-of-control Bush progeny a lesson or two about personal responsibility and equal application of the law, we might not be talking today about W's convictions for drunk driving, theft, and vandalism, or probable cocaine habit, or his well-documented AWOL from the National Guard.

 

Or about the Bush twins' underage drinking, fake IDs (yes, "good" daughter Babs Jr., too), rumored marijuana use (go ask Ashton Kutcher), or astoundingly embarrassing drunken-binge pictures.

 

Or about this mug shot of Jeb's drugged-'n'-dazed daughter, Noelle (who can't seem to control a car any better than she can control her own drug habit; guess Mom Columba was too busy trying to smuggle French goods past U.S. customs to teach her kid to drive).

 

Or Jeb-son Jebby getting caught with his pants down (literally) in a Tallahassee parking lot.

 

Or Jeb-son George P.'s stalker-like break-in to an ex-girlfriend's home.

 

Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

 

We won't even get into the Bush family's shady business dealings; we're just talking "youthful indiscretions" here. And we didn't even mention the exploding-frogs story. (Oopsy!)

 

Now, what really concerns me is not that Paul Dean is just some stupid, unthinking kid; I'm wondering if he isn't purposely attempting to undermine Daddy Dean's run. The reason the idea even occurs to me is found in the last bit of the CNN article quoted above, thrown in almost as an afterthought: "The younger Dean will not join other members of his family Monday at his father's official announcement, but the candidate said 'he didn't plan on being there to begin with. My son is very guarded about his privacy, so he's chosen not to come, and I said all right,' he said."

 

"Guarded about his privacy"? No, sorry, something's wrong there. If your daddy's a politico, you damn well show up -- even if you're a Reagan.

 

Paul, you... idiot!

 

Posted 1:16:27 PM   Send comment

---

Sharon to Peace: @#&* You! What Do You Say?

Horrors! A week without a post! Well, you know how sometimes both life and computer problems sometimes get in the way. And seeing as how Bush's economy isn't dangling the promise of a great job in front of me so I can buy a new computer anytime soon, let's keep our fingers crossed that this one will hold up, at least long enough for us to take a glance at the headlines together.

 

Above and beyond all the nastiness happening in Iraq (so, what's the count now? Fifty-six U.S. troops killed since the "war" officially ended? Way to go, Georgie!), what's caught my attention is the buggery, bloody awful stuff going on in the Israel v. Palestine game.

 

Come on, kids, don't roll your eyes like that. Maybe you want me to take a few snarky swipes at the enormous hat size of the new White House spokesman, Scott McClellan (really, I thought Dan Bartlett was going to take over Egghead Ari's job), or post some more pictures of Georgie Boy falling off a Segway or bumping his noggin trying to get out of a helicopter. Yeah, that stuff is great fun, but we've got to get down to business here. So bear with me: This Israel-Palestine stuff is important -- just as important as the horrors we're wreaking in Iraq, and maybe moreso considering that we've been involved in this Israel mess for over 30 years.

 

Now, listen, because you need to know this. It's stuff that most Americans don't understand, and don't care about. And if you don't care about it, then you're as guilty as any Palestinian suicide bomber on the streets of Jerusalem. (You think that's unfair? Too bad. You know by now how I feel about deliberate ignorance, and if you refuse to pay attention to this stuff, I'll hound your hide to hell for being one of the deliberately ignorant masses. So pay attention.)

 

So, last we heard about our best-best-bestest friend in the Middle East (that's Israel, remember), it sounded like Scary Ariel Sharon was agreeing (albeit grudgingly) to pull some of the Israeli settlements out of Palestine. This is all part of Georgie Boy's "Roadmap to Peace" (you know, the peace plan that was designed to fail in the first place, so Georgie could throw his hands in the air and say, "Well, shucks, Ah tried!").

 

Now Sharon says "Israel should continue building settlements -- but quietly -- despite his acceptance of a U.S.-backed peace plan that requires a construction freeze."

 

Huh? Even I was caught off-guard by that one. No, no, no, not the fact that that's been Sharon's plan all along (if you've been paying attention, it should come as no surprise to you either), but the fact that this info was leaked so casually. This is not the sort of stuff BushCo wants you to hear. Nor is it the sort of stuff you're going to hear if you get your "news" exclusively from the BMC (i.e., the Bush Media Conglomerate, a.k.a. Fox, CNN, MSNBC, et al).

 

So, what's Sharon's excuse for refusing to pull out? He insists that certain outposts are "vital for Israel's security," according to an unnamed "senior Cabinet official."  And Sharon's own mouthpiece Raanan Gissin agrees: "The decision to dismantle outposts will be judged on each outpost's merits."

 

And if you want to excuse Sharon for this bull puckey (that's polite-people talk for "bullshit") and point to the fact that Israel is indeed dismantling settlements, I suggest calculating the net "loss" each week: "Israel has pulled down 11 of more than 60 outposts in the past two weeks. However, Israeli peace activists say settlers have already erected eight new outposts since then."

 

Who you gonna trust -- Israeli peace activists, or Sharon Rotzeach, Butcher of Qibya?

 

In the meantime, Colin Powell exposed the yellow stripe down his back (again), refusing to take a hard line (again) against Israel (again):  "Mideast mediators, meanwhile, expressed concern over Israel's killing of Abdullah Kawasme, a local leader of the Hamas militant group in the West Bank city of Hebron. Secretary of State Colin Powell said the killing Saturday could set back peace efforts, but stopped short of directly criticizing it."

 

At least the mediators have some guts: "The mediators said they deplore 'brutal terror attacks against Israeli civilians,' but also expressed 'deep concern over Israeli military actions that result in the killing of innocent Palestinian and other civilians.'"

 

And that, my friends, is exactly the position the United States should be taking -- condemnation of both Palestine suicide bombings that kill Israelis and IDF murders of Palestinians. But we won't say word one against Israel. We never do.

 

And to do so is not anti-Semitism. It is simply the condemnation of atrocities by a government whose military is acting illegally. (Call these acts "war crimes" if you like. I do.) What the Palestinians are doing is wrong. What Israel is doing is wrong -- and, in my book, worse, because it is state-sanctioned murder.

 

Listen, people, it is far past the time we grow up and stop shying away from the facts: The government of the state of Israel is committing some of the most egregious crimes of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. And the United States is complicit in those crimes both for its funding and arming of Israel, and for its failure to condemn those acts and sanction Sharon.

 

Don't expect the U.S. to ever actually attempt to stop Sharon and his goons from murdering Palestinian civilians through the use of force; military action against Israel would mean the end of our cozily parasitic little relationship; i.e., we give them money (three billion dollars a year, in case you didn't know), weapons, and a free pass to do whatever they want, and in return they give us our own strategically-located, albeit unofficial, U.S. military outpost in the Middle East.

 

Too, war between the U.S. and Israel would mean a real World War III, of the most nightmarish kind, straight of out every end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it movie; Sharon would fire his nukes (the ones we're not supposed to know about, or talk about), and we'd fire back, and that would pretty much be the end of civilization (if, of course, you can call any of this "civilized").

 

We won't even get into the political ramifications of war with Israel; the American Christian Right (which thinks it needs Israel to fulfill its imminent "Rapture") and the present-day neocons (who are more pro-Israel than David Ben Gurion) would make sure Bush and every little Bush for generations to come would never see the inside of the Oval Office again. You can bet money on that. (Well, okay, we will touch on the subject, below, just because I can't not mention it).

 

Anyway, that's why we're not going to physically do anything about Israel's military murdering Palestinian civilians. It just ain't gonna happen.

 

But it's high time we stopped this knee-jerk reaction of cringing at the idea of even discussing Israel's atrocities, as if condemning the Sharon government has anything to do with anti-Semitism.

 

It doesn't -- any more than attacking Afghanistan or Iraq (or Iran, or Syria, or whatever Middle Eastern country is next on Georgie's list) has anything to do with being anti-Muslim. (The only thing Georgie Boy has ever said that I actually believe is that he's not waging a "war on Islam"; truth be told, it's a war for oil. The fact is that a bunch of folks who just happen to be Muslim are getting in the way of us sucking up all their yummy oil -- but it is not a "war on Islam." If they were Jews, it would be condemned as a "war on Judaism"; if they were Italians, it would be a "war on Catholicism"; if they were Chinese, it would be a "war on Buddhism." Get it?)

 

And if you don't believe that, take the current situation in the Middle East and switch Israel with Iraq: If Iraq had been our Middle Eastern military outpost all these years, and Israel had nothing to offer us but oil, we'd still be turning a blind eye to Saddam Hussein's crimes, damning Iraq's detractors as "anti-Muslim," and demanding "regime change" in Israel, so we could grab all that nice, rich Israeli oil for ourselves.

 

And you know it.

 

More importantly, a lot of Jews (American and Israeli, civilian and IDF) know it, and are unafraid of facing the truth: They know the difference between being anti-Semitic and anti-Sharon; they know that "Jews are being used by an American administration to accomplish its own ends... to legitimize the slaughter of Palestinians"; they know that the anti-Semite card is being played every time anybody attempts to point out that Israel is at least as guilty as Palestine of committing the sort of crimes that ought to land their leaders in the Hague.

 

They also know that they have been the victims of the kind of propaganda that dehumanizes the enemy into something sub-human -- "cancer," "lice," "inhuman monsters" -- that must be completely and totally annihilated.

 

(Granted, Israel and its defenders have been labeled "'fifth columnists,' 'Israel-firsters,' 'viruses,' 'bacteria,' 'cancer,' and an 'alien intrusion' operating against the interests of the United States,'" and Washington, D.C., has more than once been referred to as "Israeli-occupied territory." So, does the dehumanization of Israel forces excuse the dehumanization of Palestinians? Come on, you're a grown-up.  You don't need me to give you one of those "two wrongs don't make a right" lectures. So don't get me off-track here.)

 

The dehumanization of any people -- in this case, of the Palestinians by Israel -- has nothing whatsoever to do with Judaism, any more than Americans killing Iraqi civilians in the name of of "democracy" has anything to do with Christianity (as much as the Christian Right would like you to think it does). And yet Israel's actions against Palestine (just like our actions in Iraq), are not only excused but condoned and encouraged as the result of some bizarrely convoluted maze of thinking that this is all part of America's "divine plan," its "mission from God."

 

Don't believe me? Hey, babes, I couldn't make this stuff up if I wanted to; I keep telling you: I'm a lousy fiction writer. The frightening fact is that this is the fundamental belief of a whole slew of your neighbors, co-workers -- or more than half of all the people you meet at the post office, grocery store, and gas station (and probably more than that if you live in Texas). If you want to know what this freaky stuff is about, settle in for a long read I recommend as an excellent primer to anyone unfamiliar with the concepts of dispensationalism, preterism, eschatology, and/or millennialism:

 

In order for most of today’s Christians to escape physical death, two-thirds of the Jews in Israel must perish, soon. This is the grim prophetic trade-off that fundamentalists rarely discuss publicly, but which is the central motivation in the movement’s support for Israel. It should be clear why they believe that Israel must be defended at all costs by the West. If Israel were militarily removed from history prior to the Rapture, then the strongest case for Christians’ imminent escape from death would have to be abandoned. This would mean the indefinite delay of the Rapture. The fundamentalist movement thrives on the doctrine of the imminent Rapture, not the indefinitely postponed Rapture.

 

Gary North

The Unannounced Reason Behind

American Fundamentalism's

Support for the State of Israel

[Alternate URL]

July 19, 2000

 

That's it, in a nutshell. But humor me, and read the whole thing. If you've never heard of this stuff before, I can just about guarantee you're not going to get much sleep tonight, because this is what Christian fundamentalism, at its most zealous and dangerous, is really all about.

 

(For God's sake [and I mean that literally], get REAL, Christians! What makes you think you know better than God? What makes you think you can alter God's plan? Alas, alas for you, lawyers and Pharisees!)

 

Now, as we all wait for the four horsemen to come screaming out of the sky, it stands to reason that, just as ill-informed war supporters automatically spit the epithet "anti-American" at anyone who opposes the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the most vehement warmongers will eventually be calling us peace lovers "anti-Christian" as soon as it dawns on them that their beloved leaders have been drilling "America = Christian country" into their heads since the Reagan era. (And -- believe it -- many of these god-fearing drones have already got it into their heads that pro-peace = "anti-Christ".)

 

In reality, however, there is nothing "anti-Christian" about being anti-war. Just the opposite, in fact. As unnecessary as it may seem to say, there couldn't be a more Christian value than the rejection of unjust war at all costs. But don't listen to me; I'm just a lapsed Catholic, and (according to prosletyzers who insist on shoving Jack Chick tracks in my face) a hell-bound heathen.  Go ask Jesus; even the most confidently pro-war Christians have a hard time answering the question, "Who would Jesus bomb?" -- and even more difficulty reconciling Bush's many wars with Matthew 5:44: "But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you."

 

In the same respect, one of the core values of Judaism is "recognition that each human being is created in the image of God and is therefore infinitely precious to God."  Save for that niggling little detail about whether the Messiah has already arrived on earth or not (and the branching-off of Christian dogma and practice), differences between the basic values of Judaism and Christianity are negligible.

 

Even the nuns taught us that: As young Catholics (and regardless of what your local Seventh-Day Adventist church tells you, Catholics are indeed Christians -- and were the first Christians, at that), we were taught that we are Jews, save for the fork in the road over the identity and role of Jesus.

 

What unthinking Christians and Jews have never realized is how their respective religions, and shared core values, have been perverted into something obscene and very much anti-Christian and anti-Judaic -- not by those who would criticize in order to correct wrongs, but by those in power who use well-meaning but uninformed believers to serve their own nefarious purposes.

 

Thus, in the end, it is destructive to buy into the "anti-Semite" label for criticizing Israel, and just as thickheaded as it would be to call a critic of the United States "anti-Christian." (Don't give me any grief about Israel being a "religious state"; so what if it is? As long as it calls itself a 'democracy," I expect, as you should, that it operate as a democracy. You can't have it both ways, by calling yourself a democracy, yet operating as a theocracy. And you can quote me on that, especially as the U.S. creeps closer and closer to becoming a theocracy itself. We'll get into that rat's nest at a later date, for those folks who don't understand how I can possibly say such a thing.)

 

The upshot: Avoiding the subject of Israel's atrocities for fear of being labeled an anti-Semite makes a person just as complicit as the Israeli soldier who pulls the trigger, or the Palestinian who trips the bomb switch.

 

It is the coward's way out of an unbearably uncomfortable moral dilemma.

 

Are you going to continue to accept your own role in this complicity, or are you ready to stand up, point a finger, and say, "This, too, is wrong"?

 

---

 

I criticize Israel, not the Palestinians, because I am Jewish, not Palestinian. I criticize Israel to encourage Jews to take responsibility for our own behavior, rather than casting blame across the border.

 

Pointing the finger of blame at “the other side” is an easy way to avoid the most painful task: scrutinizing ourselves, being fully honest about our actions and our motives. Those who cry “What about the Palestinians?” are usually trying to reject or deflect justifiable criticisms of Israeli policy. They look across the border because they are afraid to look in the mirror.

 

Ira Chernus

I Criticize Israel Because I Am Jewish

Common Dreams

May 18, 2002

 

Related articles:

 

More Sharon dicking-around here.

 

More Israel-Palestine doublethink here.

 

---

Comments

---

 

Posted Mon, 23 Jun 2003 18:47:33 GMT

Julie:

 

Oh DT how I have missed you and you sure did make up for being gone for a week. That was an amazing entry. I agree. I always ask questions like if these right wingers are SO against abortion because you are taking a "human" life (just as an example) how can they be so FOR the death penalty, ignorant wars, etc. It doesn't make sense. I do believe in God. I hesitate sometimes to call myself Christian because of how badly organized religions have perverted and distorted that word. I do believe in God though. I am labeled anti-war= anti-america and anti-christian like you said. And like you said I think I am the closest to anything the bible says about not killing people. I just don't understand. I know I say that a lot but open your eyes people. Glad you are back.

 

---

 

Posted Tue, 24 Jun 2003 03:05:28 GMT

doublethink:

 

Julie, you're too kind, thank you. :)

 

Be glad it makes no sense to you; there would be something very wrong indeed if you were able to accept true doublethink -- i.e., holding two contradictory thoughts while clinging desperately to the delusion that both are true -- without knowing there was something truly warped about such thinking.

 

And, yes, it's maddening, trying to make a "doublethinker" step outside him/herself with any objectivity; it really is like trying to explain a rainbow to someone color-blind from birth. But some of us have to do it; we're compelled to throw it back in their faces and ask, "Well, which is going to be? An 'eye for an eye,' or 'Turn the other cheek'?"

 

On the "stigma" of Christianity: When I was a kid, I loathed the idea of being called "queer" because of the horribly negative connotations attached to the word. People's attitudes have gotten a tad better, but the point is, I can relate fully to denying who you are/what you believe in because a small but vocal minority has pigeonholed you as something you're not.

 

From my own experience, I know that self-denial (as a Christian, or a queer, or anything else) just plain hurts in the long run. (I expect the result is the sort of self-loathing experienced by blacks who once tried to pass for white.) I must admit, these days my first reaction to the word "Christian" is to turn tail and run so as not to have to deal with the condemnation I expect is coming -- but I don't, because I know the majority of Christians are NOT represented by the fanatical few... any more than all Texans are represented by the Bush cabal. ;)

 

By standing up and saying, "Yeah, I'm a Christian, and I'm anti-war, and here's why..." you're going to undo some of damage that's been done by the Radical Religious Right. The hard part is getting enough of the Silent Christian Majority to band together to do the same. But, hey, change comes one person at a time. It's scary to be the one to step away from the pack, but it does work. It does make people think. It does effect change.

 

I don't consider myself a Christian by any traditional definition (hybrid Buddhist-Hindi with Catholic roots is as close as I can come to defining myself), but I, and plenty of others like me, will be right behind you, and will be happy to bust the heads (figuratively, of course) of anyone who tells you you can't be both Christian and peace-loving liberal. That's what liberalism is, and what Jesus himself is all about: not mere tolerance, but genuine acceptance of and respect for every human being.

 

Of course, my own acceptance stops dead when another's beliefs encroach upon the rights of others -- or simply upon good and moral and ethical living. (And I think, inadvertently, in that respect, I do unconsciously try to emulate Jesus; he didn't have a lot of patience with the moneychangers in the temple, did he?)

 

As for hypocrisy in general, I don't understand all of it either, Julie. I think it all comes down to people being terrified of entertaining a single independent thought, because, if they find out they were wrong about one thing, they're afraid they'll be forced to re-examine all their beliefs. No one enjoys his/her foundation being shaken to the core -- no matter how necessary such a shake-up may be.

 

Me, the more brutally I put everything to the test, right down to my core beliefs, the happier I become. It can be a scary, painful process, but an exciting journey, and the most worthy one I can imagine. You know, to thine own self be true, and all. It's a real rush -- of mind, heart, and spirit.

 

Posted 4:08:25 AM   Send comment

---