religion

The essential definition of Abrahamic monotheism, as some would put it, is being  "One God too many." It must be that I agree with that notion, but I haven't really figured that out yet. All I know is that I officially withdrew my membership from the (Christian, Protestant) church recently and it still feels right.

The events of Fort Hood and the puzzle of the shooter have been on my mind. I can only imagine the pain of the actual loss of a child; it's difficult enough sometimes to have no communication whatsoever with one of mine. (His choice, with my ex's support.) So I think of those families grieving . . .and have some small glimmer of understanding.

But the shooter . . . I think of his family, too, and I think of him, lying in the hospital.

Last Sunday here it was cloudy and drizzly, and early in the morning, the village was deserted. In my walk I only met a young mother jogging and pushing a carriage. It was one of those with wheels as big as bicycle's wheels. She was moving at a good clip, and didn't say good morning, but the toddler gave me a toothless grin.

Then, a few minutes later, my friend Joe parked his truck across the street and waited for me. I think he wanted me to see that he had grown a beard because instead of saying good morning he asked if I noticed something new.

To be contrary, I said, "Yeah you washed your truck."

He shook his head, and called me an asshole.

"My wife likes it," he said.

"She should. It needed it. It needs painting too." His truck was red once, but now it has the color of a picture of Saudi Arabia taken from space. Joe is 85, and his truck is half his age, I think.

Joe was born In Brooklyn to Italian Immigrants, and he fought in the Pacific. He has told me more times than I care to hear it, how two guys in his platoon looked for Japanese wounded to finish them off after every battle.

Every time he tells me that, I say to him that they were Boddhisattvas sending Buddhists to Nirvana. I had to explain the joke a few times, but know he knows the terms, and we can discuss if his buddies were doing an evil, or good deed.

Joe was a Catholic, but what he saw in the war made him an atheist. He doesn't believe in life after death either. He is one of many soldiers liberated from superstition by war.

There have been previous reports that George Bush believed that God  chose him to be President and advised him to go to war in Iraq. In the past couple of weeks there have been reports that Donald Rumsfeld used Biblical imagery to influence Bush:

Donald Rumsfeld’s Pentagon prepared a top-secret briefing for George W. Bush. This document, known as the Worldwide Intelligence Update, was a daily digest of critical military intelligence so classified that it circulated among only a handful of Pentagon leaders and the president; Rumsfeld himself often delivered it, by hand, to the White House. The briefing’s cover sheet generally featured triumphant, color images from the previous days’ war efforts: On this particular morning, it showed the statue of Saddam Hussein being pulled down in Firdos Square, a grateful Iraqi child kissing an American soldier, and jubilant crowds thronging the streets of newly liberated Baghdad. And above these images, and just below the headline secretary of defense, was a quote that may have raised some eyebrows. It came from the Bible, from the book of Psalms: “Behold, the eye of the Lord is on those who fear Him…To deliver their soul from death.”

This mixing of Crusades-like messaging with war imagery, which until now has not been revealed, had become routine. On March 31, a U.S. tank roared through the desert beneath a quote from Ephesians: “Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand.” On April 7, Saddam Hussein struck a dictatorial pose, under this passage from the First Epistle of Peter: “It is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men.”

These cover sheets were the brainchild of Major General Glen Shaffer, a director for intelligence serving both the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the secretary of defense. In the days before the Iraq war, Shaffer’s staff had created humorous covers in an attempt to alleviate the stress of preparing for battle. Then, as the body counting began, Shaffer, a Christian, deemed the biblical passages more suitable. Several others in the Pentagon disagreed. At least one Muslim analyst in the building had been greatly offended; others privately worried that if these covers were leaked during a war conducted in an Islamic nation, the fallout—as one Pentagon staffer would later say—“would be as bad as Abu Ghraib.”

But the Pentagon’s top officials were apparently unconcerned about the effect such a disclosure might have on the conduct of the war or on Bush’s public standing. When colleagues complained to Shaffer that including a religious message with an intelligence briefing seemed inappropriate, Shaffer politely informed them that the practice would continue, because “my seniors”—JCS chairman Richard Myers, Rumsfeld, and the commander in chief himself—appreciated the cover pages.

As even at least one analyst at the Pentagon realized, the use of such language would have even worsened the belief in the Muslim world that the Bush administration was conducting a religious crusade against Islam. Rumsfeld felt it was more important to appeal to the mind set of George Bush:

The Scripture-adorned cover sheets illustrate one specific complaint I heard again and again: that Rumsfeld’s tactics—such as playing a religious angle with the president—often ran counter to sound decision-making and could, occasionally, compromise the administration’s best interests. In the case of the sheets, publicly flaunting his own religious views was not at all the SecDef’s style—“Rumsfeld was old-fashioned that way,” Shaffer acknowledged when I contacted him about the briefings—but it was decidedly Bush’s style, and Rumsfeld likely saw the Scriptures as a way of making a personal connection with a president who frequently quoted the Bible. No matter that, if leaked, the images would reinforce impressions that the administration was embarking on a religious war and could escalate tensions with the Muslim world. The sheets were not Rumsfeld’s direct invention—and he could thus distance himself from them, should that prove necessary.

So Rumsfeld thought he could impress his simple-minded boss by quoting the Bible. (The above article contains many other examples of problems with Rumsfeld.)

Just a few days ago Counterpunch reported that a new book by Jacques Chirac confirms previous reports that Bush used Biblical prophesy to justify the war in Iraq:

In 2003 while lobbying leaders to put together the Coalition of the Willing, President Bush spoke to France’s President Jacques Chirac. Bush wove a story about how the Biblical creatures Gog and Magog were at work in the Middle East and how they must be defeated.

In Genesis and Ezekiel Gog and Magog are forces of the Apocalypse who are prophesied to come out of the north and destroy Israel unless stopped. The Book of Revelation took up the Old Testament prophesy:

“And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle … and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.”

Bush believed the time had now come for that battle, telling Chirac:

“This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people’s enemies before a New Age begins”.

The article goes on to say that this has been confirmed in a book by Chirac:

The story has now been confirmed by Chirac himself in a new book, published in France in March, by journalist Jean Claude Maurice. Chirac is said to have been stupefied and disturbed by Bush’s invocation of Biblical prophesy to justify the war in Iraq and “wondered how someone could be so superficial and fanatical in their beliefs”.

In the same year he spoke to Chirac, Bush had reportedly said to the Palestinian foreign minister that he was on “a mission from God” in launching the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and was receiving commands from the Lord.

There can be little doubt now that President Bush’s reason for launching the war in Iraq was, for him, fundamentally religious. He was driven by his belief that the attack on Saddam’s Iraq was the fulfilment of a Biblical prophesy in which he had been chosen to serve as the instrument of the Lord.

Why several posters here

are writing stuff like:

"X is Y!"

"Every X is Y!"

"No X is Y"

This is not about

"every post shows poster's opinion".

It's more similar to prevarication.

And...

They don't know jack!

Is this a freak circus?

....How about a poem?

Hot taps, cold taps, wormholes

Left eye

is seeing the blue.

Right eye's seeing red shades.

Another one, apparently,

doesn't wanna talk about it again.

--zow

You can read my recent post on Islam and music, religion here.

Take Catholicism for example; Most are into Mariolatry or worship of Mary which is a substitute for the pre-christian goddess. Except in Ireland where she is rivalled by 'Mary of the Gael'--Saint Brigid, who in turn is a substitue for the Triune Goddess Brigid. Then there are all the saints that are prayed to---again these are the demi gods and devas of pre christianity again. In fact in Mexico and other places they are just the old gods with new names...Jesus as such is never really directly worship and generally ...god is just a name, unlike El or Allah. In fact if the Catholics and Orthodox gave up the idea that Jesus was unique they would fit right into old Druidism or Hinduism today. In fact the Irish name 'Kelly' or Calleigh is the name of a hideous goddess looking much like Kali or Durga...

P.S. As an extra...This type of multi devas religion is much more akin to how the human mind evolved its spirituality. Unlike the almost enforced ideas of Judaism, Islam and Protestantism...which seem to produce draconian direct and indirect suppressions and censorships. Islam is leading the band in the most inhuman of the main religions today. Why muslims come west and drag their archaic, backwards, misogynistic crap with them I don't know.... The world did quite well without these main religions anyway. For thousands of years there was spirituality but no religion like the modern ones...which in the end will fail as they don't suit the pattern of the human mind and have to be enforced.....until the adherents leave; As is happening with Judaism and Christianity, and will also happend to the later abhorrent islam.

Cross-posted to Daily Kos

McCain strategist Steve Schmidt thinks that the GOP risks becoming the religious party (as if it isn't already.)

Fox News reports:

John McCain’s top adviser from the presidential campaign urged fellow Republicans on Friday to warm up to gay rights and warned that the GOP risks becoming the “religious party” with its opposition to same-sex marriage.

Steve Schmidt, in his first political appearance since the election, spoke at the Washington, D.C., convention for the Log Cabin Republicans — a grassroots group for gay and lesbian Republicans.

He urged Republicans, in the near-term, to endorse civil unions and stop using the Bible as rationale for gay-marriage opposition.

“If you put public policy issues to a religious test, you risk becoming a religious party,” he said. “And in a free country a political party cannot be viable in the long-term if it is seen as a sectarian party.”

Schmidt, whose sister is a lesbian and who supports same-sex marriage, said he understands the Republican Party probably won’t reverse its resistance to same-sex marriage anytime soon.

But he suggested that the party will be increasingly marginalized if it sustains that opposition long-term.

By John Barnhart, Executive Editor, American Daily Review

All one need do is watch the news regarding politics and religion during the holidays to discover that there is indeed a culture war going on in America.

The reason the war exists at all is because secular progressives cannot stand practicing Jews, Catholics, Protestants, Evangelical Christians or Christianity, they do not want to answer to God for their behavior, and the concept of a natural connection between Jews and Christians as it relates to the birth of our nation, the U.S. Constitution and service to Jehovah is even more repugnant to them.

In addition, secular progressives are on a mission to confuse others who are stuck in the middle, lost, unsure what they believe, or are atheist republicans and pull them over to “the dark side” if they can.

To find evidence of the hatred secular progressives have for organized, reverent religion and our Lord who inspires it, just study Supreme Court and other case law.

Secular progressives support the sadistic slaughter of innocent babies, they hate any allowance of prayer in school, they force people to consider and discuss homosexuality, bestiality and other sexual deviancy like the pedophilia that the North American Man Boy Love Association promotes as “normal.”

The Ten Commandments, The Holy Bible, the Crucifix, the Cross, the Star of David, “In God We Trust”, “One Nation Under God” and many other religious icons, traditions, phrases, publications, are under constant attack from secular progressives depending on where and how they are discussed or displayed.

Ruthless, Godless, secular progressives constantly shove their empty, selfish, deviant lifestyles in the face of God fearing believers while trashing us and God in the process. They use the media, science, education and the judicial system to help them in their quest to rid our nation of any reference to God, and they make huge efforts to pit Jews, Catholics, Protestants, and Evangelical Christians against one another.

The way that they twist our faith and portray us angers me greatly, especially when I see their pundits on CNN and other media outlets discussing us as in a negative way as if having a deep seeded faith is a bad thing or just a stupid superstition.

Then they push the envelope and try to split us by saying thing like these…

“Hey you there…yes you… you Jew, you Christian, you Catholic, do you realize how many times that Israel has stolen intelligence material from the United States… the country that “props them up,” or “hey have you forgotten how many Jews and Protestants were killed by Catholics”, and oh yes then there is this old method… “Do you not remember that each of your faith’s have different beliefs in regards to if there is a Heaven, a Hell, a Messiah and if it was or was not Jesus?” And of course it eventually comes down to “where is and who is this God you speak of and why would he allow people to live in horrible poverty and die horrible deaths?” OR “anyone who believes that there is a God is stupid, and uneducated.”

They demonize us by bringing up the worst elements of our histories or the most “unbelievable” stories, “myths” and “legends” of our common Biblical heritage in hopes we will feed on one another instead of closing ranks.

They cite The Crusades, The Inquisition, The Slaughter of the Innocents by Herod the Great, Noah’s Flood, Adam and Eve, Joshua’s bloody battles in Canaan where “God told him to do it”, the mere belief in God, the very concept of or belief in a Messiah, they even use Abraham’s potential sacrifice of his own son to cast shadows on us when some nutty mother or father does something evil like kill their own kids and it makes huge headlines.

What they don’t realize is that for me, and many like me, whether I was a Catholic, a Protestant or an Evangelical Christian, my beliefs will never waver. I will always believe that God gave Israel to the Jews, and that he gave “the free world” especially America, to the Jew and to the Christian so we may live free and enjoy liberty without fear of religious persecution.

To me, secular progressives have chosen to not just oppose our common beliefs but to trample on them, twist them, spit on them, etc. and as such they might as well have declared war on Jehovah God himself and then tied a mill stone around their necks and launched themselves into the deepest ocean.

I have little to no sympathy for them!

The people I care about are those who are “lost.” They “recognize there might be a God” but they don’t have a relationship with him, or they recognize Israel’s right to The Holy Land but don’t understand why, they just think it’s because of the holocaust and they have no clue to the deeper meaning.

Moderate, Atheist or agnostic “conservatives” are you listening? There is more to this conservatism we hold dear than just simple economic politics. REAL conservatism truly comes down to faith in God and his promise to watch over us, if we only do the few simple things he asks and move our nation in his direction.

REAL conservatives recognize the right way to live because of our faith not because of our wallets.

Anyway, with all that said, I will leave readers with this…

Despite secular progressive’s attacks and attempts to divide politically conservative Jews and Christians in the culture war, I will NEVER feel guilty for being a Judeo-Christian, I will NEVER renounce or relinquish my faith in God or deny God’s promises to his chosen people regarding The Holy Land.

I will NEVER stop offering conservative commentary without compromise, and neither should anyone else.

http://www.americandailyreview.com

It's nearly impossible to talk about the future of the GOP without hearing an opinion, one way or another, about the future role of "the Religious Right" in the party.  Some would argue it's time for the GOP to drop talk of God, that religion has poisoned the party and has turned away Independents and moderates; others say maintaining a focus on Christian values is essential to the survival of the Right.

But in Barack Obama's 2004 address at the Democratic Convention, he remarked "We worship an awesome God in the blue states...", and he's right - it's not just in the "red states" that folks are pouring into churches tonight to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ.

So since we're in a spiritual time of the year, what better a time to do some serious reflection on the role that Christianity should play in the Republican Party? For the GOP to position itself as an exclusive club for the devoutly evangelical is to forfeit elections for years to come.  But is there a place for God in the Republican Party?

Yes.  Absolutely. 

But when we think of Christianity in our politics, what do we immediately think of?  We think of angry protests over Proposition 8 in California.  We think of the left angrily denouncing Rick Warren's selection to offer a prayer at Obama's inauguration.  We think of angry clashes over abortion.   We think of angry parents having angry battles over the teaching of evolution in school.  We think of putting up the Ten Commandments in courthouses and lawsuits over nativity scenes. Both sides are guilty of stirring up anger in the name of moral values.

But if those debates are how the Republican Party has supposedly "cornered the market" on Christianity, we sure haven't been dealing with the kind of Christianity that I saw tonight at church, that millions of Americans deal with as a powerful force for good in their everyday lives. 

For all of the emphasis on winning over Christian voters by appealing to a narrow set of "Christian values"- defending marriage, protecting the unborn, teaching Intelligent Design in schools [see comments for edit] - I'd much rather see Republican (or, in fact, all) politicians speaking about the "Christian value" that I think matters just as much if not more to the vast majority of Christian Americans - love thy neighbor.

The idea of "love thy neighbor" isn't an exclusively Christian belief.  And we shouldn't be an exclusively Christian party.

Yet we as a party have painted ourselves into a corner.  Part of driving a "base strategy" means too often we've turned religion into a divider instead of a uniter.  We've focused on the aspects of Christianity that fracture while all but ignoring what Republican policies can do to make sure Americans can afford to buy a Christmas tree, to have a roof over their head and a healthy family to celebrate with. 

And I'll tell you what - the tree and the roof and the healthy family matter more to most Americans than the divisive issues we've primarily used to bring Christianity into our political discourse. 

Moreover, can we claim to be a party that represents Christian values when we run campaign ads that are willfully malicious, disingenuous, or misleading?  When we are focused on tearing down our opponent without discussing how our own personal values shape the sorts of policies we'd like to pursue?  From a political perspective, our brand as the party that isn't afraid to sling mud and go to nasty extremes to win elections (without discussing solutions) has been built up and continues to eat away at the American people's trust in us.  ("Compassionate conservatism" didn't pan out so well.)

And setting politics aside, I'd like to think we can do better.

(On a related note, stop what you're doing right now and go run to Amazon.com and buy yourself a copy of Morris Fiorina's Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America.)

The notion that every human life is sacred is an important one, and not one that should be cast out of the party, I'll readily agree.  But the dignity of human life is important for the unborn as well as those born and living among us as our neighbors - the alone, the sick, the needy.   We need advocates for the unborn in our party, but so too do we need an agenda that focuses on the dignity of human life and mutual respect in our inner cities, in the third world, in our schools.  We can't focus on one and ignore the other without essentially cherry picking when we decide we care about human life.

Is it easier to appear "compassionate" when you can simply say that the government should provide everything to everyone?  Sure.  The Left has an easier tale to tell in many regards.  The idea of an activist government lends itself to painting a pretty picture of a world where every child gets educated by a great teacher in a class of 12 students, where every American can go to the doctor whenever they need to and receive top-quality health care regardless of their ability to pay, where the poor are given a home and a job.

Wouldn't that be great?  And there, you have an outcome that the other side has articulated.  And it's a pretty good one.  It's one where there's a lot of "loving thy neighbor" going on, even if the love is government mandated.

We on the Right know that the policies the Left will push to achieve these outcomes only lead to dependency and dead-ends, a stagnant economy and a stagnant nation.  We know that Americans are at their best when they are doing good in their communities, and that private citizens and organizations have a powerful ability to make change in the lives of those in need.  But it can be tough to reconcile believing that everyone should be treated with respect and compassion, that everyone has a right to a happy, healthy life...while also saying it's not the government's job to give it to everyone or to construct a perfect (and "perfectly" managed) society. OK then, if not the government's job, whose job is it? 

I think this is where Matt Moon's earlier posts about the "opportunity society" come in - we on the Right don't think government is the be-all end-all answer to all the ills of society, but we can give everyone a chance.  And we as a party need to talk about these issues instead of running in fear and ceding the ground to the Left because we don't know how to have a conversation about what we believe about poverty, about health care, about education.  If we want to connect to Americans and their values, we can't pretend these issues don't matter or that we can just talk about tax credits and try to change the subject.  

Do our candidates and leaders need to wear their religion on their sleeve? No.  Religion itself is a very personal matter to many Americans, and the blend of religion and politics that is intended to demagogue and divide will hopefully find its way out the door.  A focus on religion as a litmus test for our leaders, as an exclusionary aspect of partisanship, is doomed to failure.  

But many Americans have a place for spirituality in their lives, whatever shape or form that comes in, and there is something important driving millions of Americans to go to church tonight.  God matters to America, and matters in politics - just maybe not in the way we've been lead to believe. The season of hope, happiness and love isn't just a Christian phenomenon; it's something everyone can take part in, and it's a spirit I hope won't be forgotten as soon as the presents are all opened.

This debate will go on and on and on in the coming weeks as we prepare to select our RNC chair and to set our party on a course to bounce back in 2010.   The role that religion, and in particular Christianity, will play in the party will hopefully receive a healthy amount of attention and discussion. 

And in the spirit of the holidays, I'd encourage Republicans to remember that there's a lot more to the Christian faith than the hot-button issues that we're told drive religious voters.  

Tonight in church, I heard a lot about hope, about happiness, about giving and love for one another.  If we want to move forward as a party that takes sound values to heart, I'd suggest these values as the best place to start.

Republicans don't have a God problem, though I am becoming convinced that there are some conservatives who have a problem with God. 

Kathleen Parker, in her latest column assails Republicans for allowing the "the evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy branch of the GOP" to what?  Remain in the party?  Have a seat at the table?  Influence politicians?  

Parker lets the mask slip, however, when she says " the GOP has surrendered its high ground to its lowest brows".  Now it becomes clear.  This is simply another attack by a self-described intellectual elite on a (sizeable) number of Americans who exasperate her.

I haven't set foot in a church in years, and have no desire to start.  My religious views are, as Parker suggests they should be for all, "in the privacy of my heart", but to suggest that ours is the only way to conduct ourselves in the political sphere isn't just lunacy, it's damning conservatism to irrelevance.  

Where is Ms. Parker's outrage over Barack Obama's plan to ensure that "we are all our brother's keeper", using the government to further his religious beliefs?  Where is Parker's disgust at the formation of left-leaning religious/political groups like We Believe Ohio and We Believe Colorado?  The Democrats are welcoming religious voters, yet Kathleen Parker thinks Republicans need to reject them?

You don't  grow a party by becoming more exclusive.  You don't win elections by alienating millions of Americans.  Kathleen Parker is showing the right way to become irrelevant as a political party, and I can only assume that her intellectual vapidity is worth it as long as the movers and shakers in D.C. can view her as one of those "acceptable conservatives".  

The GOP can be the party of religious diversity, but not at the expense of alienating evangelical Christians.  Thomas Jefferson was as close to a non-believer as you could find among the Founders, but even he recognized that freedom of religion protected the rights of the religious as well as the non-believers.  Jefferson's Statute for Religious Freedom was written in 1779, during the rise of the Baptist Church in his state.  A decade earlier, the sheriff of Spotsylvania County had jailed four Baptist preachers for 40 days.  In 1771, Edmund Pendleton (head of the Caroline County Court and member of the House of Burgesses), watched as the clerk of his court dragged Baptist minister John Waller down the courthouse steps, his head pounding "against the ground, sometimes up, sometimes down" and handed him over to the local sheriff.  After the sheriff whipped the preacher, Waller "in a gore of blood went back singing praise to God, mounted the stage and preached with a great deal of liberty."*

If Jefferson felt that "evangelical, right-wing, oogedy-boogedy" Christians shouldn't have a say in politics, one would think he would have mentioned it.  Instead, Jefferson and the founders explicitly protected the religion and speech of radical Christians as well as non-believers.  Perhaps it was because even Jefferson realized that the push for liberty had started with the human desire to worship God as one pleased, and that religious freedom had led to greater human freedom.  Kathleen Parker may want to exorcise religion from the political sphere, but she should at least acknowledge that if our own Founders had done so, this country would be a far different place... one undeniably worse than it is today. 

If Kathleen Parker had advocated coming up with a compelling secular argument for things like traditional marriage and pro-life positions, I would heartily agree with her.  It's not enough for a Republican to base their arguments on religion. Conservative principles shouldn't work only for evangelical Christians.  Conservatism needs to work for every American, but  that's a matter of messaging, not changing what it means to be a conservative. 

*The Unknown American Revolution, Gary Nash

I write this article neither as a Liberal nor as a Conservative. I write this article as an American. I write this as a Caucasian American who holds to a set of Moderate to Right-Libertarian political views.   I write this as someone who is quote worried about the direction our Nation is taking. I write this as someone who is heartsick over the deep divisions in the world of politics.

 For the first time, since I have been Blogging, I feel the need to speak out against those who hold similar political views as mine. I am referring to the comments that were made by Rep. Michelle Bachmann. Rep. Michelle Bachmann on an appearance on MSNBC’s Hardball said that there were persons in the United States Congress, who held to Anti-American views.  She also said that these people should be investigated.

Before I get into why I disapprove of this, let me make some things clear. Contrary to popular belief, my Politics is not as far right as some. In fact, I tend to lean towards the center on some issues. I am a moderate on many issues. Although, when it comes to our Military, My disdain of the Islam Religion, Our Nations Constitution, and a few other things, I am much to the right of some. However, on other issues, I tend to be more of a Libertarian. For example, I do not believe that it is the Governments right to tell a woman what to do with her body. 

Now personally on a personal level, I object to Abortion on grounds that it is murder, this is because I am a Christian and I believe that life begins at conception. Nevertheless, on a Political Level, I believe that the United States Government does not have the right to dictate to woman what she can and cannot do with her body. Furthermore, I do not believe that the State Government should dictate to a woman what she can and cannot do to her own body.  

This is because I believe in personal freedom. I also reject the Conservative Christian idea of turning America into a Theocracy.  I also believe in a full wall of separation of Church and State.  However, just as well, I believe the woman should be given all the alternatives to terminating a pregnancy, however, if she decides to do so, that is between her and God. Let God be the judge of that woman. I reject the browbeating that the far right gives to those who decide to perform such an action. That sort of abject nonsense goes against the very core freedoms in our Constitution.  Those that cannot separate between the political and spiritual realms should not involve themselves in politics at all.  

Now do my personal political views of mine make me Anti-American? I think the sane and logical answer to that would be no. Now in the interest of full disclosure, I have little or no use for the far left. I will spare you the reasons for that. I will simply say that I did not leave the Democrat Party, it left me, long ago, especially during this election cycle. However, for me to sit here and write that Democrats were Anti-Americans would be a lesson in abject foolishness.  Frankly, Rep. Michelle Bachmann’s comments yesterday did nothing to raise the level of political discourse in this country whatsoever.  Rep. Michelle Bachmann was essentially doing a poor imitation of Ann Coulter or at worst channeling Joseph McCarthy. I am fully aware that it was written recently that Joseph McCarthy was correct on some matters; it, in fact, was the destructive behavior of Senator McCarthy that ruined his career.    

It is this writer’s opinion that channeling Senator Joseph McCarthy in this desperate hour would be a total and unequivocal disaster to the Republican Party’s cause.  It is not lost upon me that the political landscape of the Democratic Party has changed a great deal in the last eight years, Mrs. Katrina Vanden Heuvel ‘s response to the remarks being a perfect example of this. However, the channeling of McCarthyism will do nothing to further the Conservative cause. In fact, it will alienate more than it will help.