O.T. America & Freethinkers...

[hantayo]

MOYERS: Susan Jacoby has a problem with all this talk about God in politics.
She comes from a long American tradition of freethinkers and that's the
title of her new book, her fifth. She's director of the Center for Inquiry,
an organization that works to promote science and reason.
We met the other day for a conversation about religion and politics.

MOYERS: You express a deep concern and fear that since 9/11 patriotism and
religion have become inseparable in this country. Why is that of alarm to
you?

JACOBY: It's of alarm first of all because it's such a very dangerous thing
when patriotism and religion become equated. So often the kind of religion
which is melded with patriotism and not only in America - we see the
horrifying implications of it throughout history- becomes nationalism and
militarism and a complete intolerance for any other point of view. I think
it's dangerous to. the God is on our side thing is extremely dangerous. And
I'd like to go back to something to the Civil War.

MOYERS: Sure.

JACOBY: Lincoln spoke a lot about God. But in a somewhat different way. His
second inaugural address which is so famous and in many occasions before
that he pointed out the real problem in saying that you consult God for your
instructions about how to conduct war or any form of policy.
Which is that, "Northerners and southerners prayed to the same god," he
said. But the northern God by that point said, "Slavery was bad. You must go
to war to eliminate it." And the southern God who spoke to southerners at
that time said, "The Bible supports slavery. God and slavery are one."
Isn't that a perfect example of the danger of looking to the divine to solve
human problems? People's God speaks to them in different voices. The Civil
War is the perfect example of it.

MOYERS: Abraham Lincoln belonged to no church. He refused in fact to join a
church during his first campaign even though his political advisors urged
him to do so because it would help his election.
Do you think Abraham Lincoln could be elected president today?

JACOBY: No. I don't think he would be nominated today. I don't think anyone
who doesn't belong. I don't think an atheist who called himself an atheist
could be nominated. But I also think it would be quite impossible - anyone
who didn't belong to a church would be immediately suspect today.
Look what happens even when Howard Dean was tarred with the dreaded S-word
for secular and the issue of whether he was too secular a person to be
nominated was raised. Instead of saying, which I would like to see a
candidate say, instead of saying my religious beliefs are my own. Which
Jefferson and Washington and Madison and the early president said and
Lincoln too. Instead of saying my religious beliefs are my own but I
believe, "Yes in secular government." And in an absolutely separation of
church and state.
He suddenly discovered, "Well I pray ever day. And I'm trying to become more
comfortable" he said "with discussing my religion in public." Why should we
be expecting a candidate to be, quote, "comfortable with discussing his
religion in public?"

MOYERS: Why should you be so concerned? You're free to think as you think,
to believe as you believe, to be the atheist you are. No one is trying to
take that away from you or dampen your belief system, are they? Is that.

JACOBY: Well, it.

MOYERS: Aren't you protected by the Constitution and the First Amendment?

JACOBY: I am protected. I can believe what I want. But there is another
issue. It's not merely one of protection of individual belief. It's also the
other side of it, the side of it that's the constitutional, the no religious
tests. Supreme power to "We the people." Which is the protection of
government from religion.
And that's where I think religion is well protected from government in this
country now as it always has been. Where we're falling down as a result of
developments and the great rise of the religious right during the past 30
years is in the protection of government from religion.

MOYERS: What leads you to conclude that?

JACOBY: A myriad of actions on every front. The open espousal of faith based
programs, the appointment of judges who have expressed open contempt for
separation of church and state. Judge Pryor the former Alabama Attorney
General who was appointed by Bush when Congress was in recess to bypass the
Senate confirmation process.
I just came across a speech he made in defense at a rally in favor of Judge
Moore. He of the two-ton Ten Commandments monument. And Judge Prior said. he
said in this speech, he said, "Now is the time for all Christians,
Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants to take back our country and our
courts."
I think that the appointment of such a judge which President Bush went out
of his way to do. I think that statement should disqualify anyone for a
federal judgeship. No federal judge should be saying, "Now is the time for
Christians to take back our country and our courts."
Our country and our courts were never Christians. They never were Christian.
They aren't Christians to take back because they were never intended to be
Christian. So the kinds of judges that President Bush has appointed and
would continue to appoint certainly if he's reelected. Are judges who have
contempt for separation of church and state.
And Bush has also meant in many other government programsm, for instance,
the towing of the line on abortion. Bush's decision on stem cell research
which most leading scientists believe has already really hampered American
research. Because they regard research on embryos as a form of abortion.
It is having personal religious faith, his, determine public policy in a way
that no president has ever done before.

MOYERS: How do you.

JACOBY: Including Ronald Reagan.

MOYERS: Who was a man of.

JACOBY: Who was conservative but not nearly as conservative on religious
issues.

MOYERS: Well the father of modern conservatism, Barry Goldwater was very
much opposed.

JACOBY: Very much opposed to it. He made a speech which I think I can't even
quote on public television on the floor of the Senate in 1980 basically
saying, "If one more blankety-blank preacher tries to tell me how I should
vote and if God is going to be. to strike me dead if I don't vote this way
I've had enough of it." I'm putting this in more polite language than Barry.
You can say anything on the floor of the Senate.

MOYERS: And they do. And then they.

JACOBY: And they had a Federal Communications Commission doesn't censure it.

MOYERS: And then they erase it the next day on the Congressional Record. How
do you explain that I'm going to get a lot of vitriolic mail because of what
you're saying on this show?

JACOBY: I think certainly, certainly judging from my email, people send me
email praising what I have to say and denigrating what I have to say. The
praise is always more measured than the denigration which of course tells me
I'm going to hell. And it's really in a rage that I don't share their point
of view and the point of view is being presented. Even though their point of
view is being presented on hundreds of radio shows.

MOYERS: Oh yeah.

JACOBY: .even as we speak right now. It's not as though the point of view of
the Christian right is not well presented. We do not dominate. We
secularists do not dominate the public square.
I think one of the brilliant successes of the right wing in which the press
has been a sort of ignorant collaborator is appropriating the word religion.
What do we mean when we say that Americans are religious?
Those Catholics for instance who disagree with their church's teachings say
on abortion and on gay rights they're just a different kind of Catholic from
those who share the Pope's views. Just as Evangelical Baptists like Jimmy
Carter, who slapped at the fundamentalist Georgia State Superintendent of
Schools who wanted to remove the word evolution in the year 2004 from their
biology textbooks. He's as much a devout, religious person as is George W.
Bush. But there are different kinds of religion. So religious doesn't mean,
doesn't mean you have to follow the kind of religion which is being espoused
by our government today.

MOYERS: You write in praise of secularism. What exactly are you praising?

JACOBY: I'm praising a belief system which particularly in relation to
public affairs, but I have to say also in relation to personal conduct, says
we have an obligation to create a decent society, to behave decently to one
another, not because we're afraid that we're going to hell of we're hopeful
that we're going to heaven. But because this is what it means to be human.
This is what we owe each other as decent human beings. Not because we think
that some divinity is going to punish us if we're not good.
And I think the idea that the people have to have religion and that
governments have to have religion to be good, this is what I detest. And I
think that's the difference and I think, you know, someone once asked me,
"Well if you don't believe in God, what's to stop you from killing someone?"
No one had ever asked me that before.
I said, "Well, honestly, it never occurred to me to kill anyone." And not
because I think God is going to punish me or even because I think I'm going
to go to jail. I don't want to.

MOYERS: There are these people who say that we can't derive a moral standard
without reference to an absolute standard. And my question then is, "Where
does one draw, who is not a believer in an absolute or transcendental God,
where does one draw one's ethical imperatives?

JACOBY: Out of respect for common humanity. Out of respect for our own
humanity. Out of respect for what it means to have evolved into who we are
over the years. Out of, good heavens, the knowledge that the rights we want
for ourselves we have to grant to others.
Robert Ingersoll put it beautifully. Someone a reporter asked him that same
question in the 1870s. He said, "Secularism teaches us to be good here and
now. I know of nothing better than good. Secularism teaches us to be just
here and now. I know of nothing juster than just."
I feel that way. But justice on Earth doesn't require a thought of heaven.
And I also feel that we can only resolve our social conflicts, our political
conflicts by reference to ourselves.

MOYERS: And you mean by. in yourselves. You mean in the sanctioned system we
have set up to arrive at some resolution of our differences?
JACOBY: Yes.
MOYERS: The courts of politics.

JACOBY: Yes. And we will never do it by appealing to God because God is such
a different thing to so many different people.

MOYERS: You call the book FREETHINKERS. Tell our audience why that title?

JACOBY: Freethinker, a great word. It first appears at the end of the 17th
century. And what it meant was someone who opposed orthodox religion,
ecclesiastical hierarchy. Freethinkers. And it grew into a real social
movement in the next two centuries.
Freethinkers were not necessarily atheists or agnostics although they were
always called that. Isn't it funny that religious fanatics always all anyone
whose religion is different from theirs an atheist.

MOYERS: And who are your heroes of the free thinking movement?

JACOBY: Thomas Paine. Paine because he put in popular language religious
doubt. He also wasn't an atheist although he was always called that.

MOYERS: Theodore Roosevelt called Tom Paine a filthy little atheist.

JACOBY: He did. And yet Paine even says that he believes in God. What he
hates are church hierarchies. He hates the authority of ministers. He hates
the authority of priests.
He hates the authority of bishops. He certainly hated the authority of the
Pope. All established church hierarchies he hated. And that side of free
thought is constant whether they believe in God or not. And Baptists.
Speaking of Baptists, as you're a Baptist.
Another thing that would surprise at least a lot of the conservative wing of
Baptists today is that Baptists were, along with freethinkers, they united
to ratify the Constitution as it was and earlier to write Virginia's
Religious Freedom Act which is the first state to totally separate Church
and State. And they did that of course then because they were a minority
religion. And they deeply believed that religion was no business of
government at all.
They united with freethinkers who were more concerned that government not be
the business of religion. But here were compromise, here were flexible
people. They came to the same position which is Church and State should be
completely separate from different perspectives.

MOYERS: When you use the word, the phrase, "the separation of Church and
State," what do you think of?

JACOBY: I think of it as a great and mighty and nourishing river. That's
what I think of it as, a river divides just as a wall. But it divides in a
life giving way. And I think of it.

MOYERS: How so?

JACOBY: And I think of it that way because it nourishes, it has nourished
both religion and government. Certainly the plethora of religions we have,
the vitality of religious life is due to the fact that the government was
never able to interfere with religion. Not really of course there are many
exceptions but there was always this constitution saying no you can't do it.
And certainly government, our government, a secular government is the great
gift we gave to the world at a time when it didn't have it.
And seeing high government officials including the President and including
Justice Scalia, including a lot of other people just naming the two top
names very influential denying these life giving properties of separation of
church and state. Saying it's not even true, ignoring the fact that the
Constitution specifically grants authority to we the people. And pretending
that our government was founded as a Christian government.
Do you know - I don't mention this in the book - but in 1797 the Barbary
Pirates were attacking American ships. And so, you know, President John
Adams and signed in the Senate and the House unanimously signed a treaty
that was arranged, the Treaty of Tripoli. And they were of course Muslims at
the time in Tripoli. And one of the provisions of this treaty which was
published in American newspapers and again ratified with no comment in the
Senate, in the House and signed by President Adams, was that the United
States is in no way a Christian nation is the exact statement.
Was in no way founded as a Christian nation. Therefore we have nothing. I'm
paraphrasing now. We have nothing against they called the Muselmen then.
They were reassuring the Barbary states that America, which was not founded
as a Christian country, as the document states, was not going to interfere
with their religious practices.
And this provision occasioned basically no comment. If the separation of
church and state was not taken for granted even that early in the Republic
by both the religious and the nonreligious in America why imagine the fight
we would have over some agreement. You know let's say we signed a test ban
treaty today and it said something like, "We are not a Christian nation?"

MOYERS: This woman has a bee in her bonnet as we used to say down south.
What is it that motivated you to write this book?

JACOBY: I do have a bee in my bonnet as you so nicely put it. I actually,
This book started with another book. Several years ago I wrote a memoir
titled HALF-JEW and it was really about my father who pretended he wasn't a
Jew and was a Roman Catholic convert his whole life.
And it started me thinking I would speak in temples. And they would ask me
you know, "What are you now? Wanting to hear that I had returned to the
Judaism of my father's forbears, which he of course never knew either.
And I would say in a way unhappily because I knew these nice people who had
come to temples to listen to me would be disappointed. I would say I'm an
atheist. And there would be a gasp of surprise.
And someone said in one audience, "You mean you believe in nothing." And I
started thinking about that. I said, "Well no. I don't believe in nothing."
And I started thinking about that. Well, no. I don't believe in nothing.
There are a lot of things I believe in. I believe that our obligation is to
make life better because it's our obligation to each other as human beings.
Not in relation to eternal rewards and infernal punishments.
And then I started thinking, "This is what a lot of the founders of this
country believed." And why is the secular tradition in America which as
powerful as the religious tradition. Why is it so denigrated today? Why has
it been so lost at least in this period of our history? That really started
my writing this book.

MOYERS: The book is FREETHINKERS, A HISTORY OF AMERICAN SECULARISM, the
author is Susan Jacoby. Thank you very much for being with us on NOW.

JACOBY: Thank you. It's really been a pleasure.
The above interview came from:' NOW with Bill Moyers '

http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript320_full.html

http://www.pbs.org/now/society/jacoby.html

[Rob Duncan]

Post by hantayo
MOYERS: Susan Jacoby has a problem with all this talk about God in politics.
She comes from a long American tradition of freethinkers and that's the
title of her new book, her fifth. She's director of the Center for Inquiry,
an organization that works to promote science and reason.
We met the other day for a conversation about religion and politics.
MOYERS: You express a deep concern and fear that since 9/11 patriotism and
religion have become inseparable in this country. Why is that of alarm to
you?
JACOBY: It's of alarm first of all because it's such a very dangerous thing
when patriotism and religion become equated. So often the kind of religion
which is melded with patriotism and not only in America - we see the
horrifying implications of it throughout history- becomes nationalism and
militarism and a complete intolerance for any other point of view. I think
it's dangerous to. the God is on our side thing is extremely dangerous. And
I'd like to go back to something to the Civil War.
MOYERS: Sure.
JACOBY: Lincoln spoke a lot about God. But in a somewhat different way. His
second inaugural address which is so famous and in many occasions before
that he pointed out the real problem in saying that you consult God for your
instructions about how to conduct war or any form of policy.
Which is that, "Northerners and southerners prayed to the same god," he
said. But the northern God by that point said, "Slavery was bad. You must go
to war to eliminate it."

This "lady" is an idiot extraordinare. The North didnt go to war to
eliminate slavery. What an idiot.


Rob

[hantayo]

Post by hantayo

Post by hantayo
MOYERS: Susan Jacoby has a problem with all this talk about God in

politics.

Post by hantayo
She comes from a long American tradition of freethinkers and that's the
title of her new book, her fifth. She's director of the Center for

Inquiry,

Post by hantayo
an organization that works to promote science and reason.
We met the other day for a conversation about religion and politics.
MOYERS: You express a deep concern and fear that since 9/11 patriotism and
religion have become inseparable in this country. Why is that of alarm to
you?
JACOBY: It's of alarm first of all because it's such a very dangerous

thing

Post by hantayo
when patriotism and religion become equated. So often the kind of religion
which is melded with patriotism and not only in America - we see the
horrifying implications of it throughout history- becomes nationalism and
militarism and a complete intolerance for any other point of view. I think
it's dangerous to. the God is on our side thing is extremely dangerous.

And

Post by hantayo
I'd like to go back to something to the Civil War.
MOYERS: Sure.
JACOBY: Lincoln spoke a lot about God. But in a somewhat different way.

His

Post by hantayo
second inaugural address which is so famous and in many occasions before
that he pointed out the real problem in saying that you consult God for

your

Post by hantayo
instructions about how to conduct war or any form of policy.
Which is that, "Northerners and southerners prayed to the same god," he
said. But the northern God by that point said, "Slavery was bad. You

must

Post by hantayo
go

Post by hantayo
to war to eliminate it."

This "lady" is an idiot extraordinare. The North didnt go to war to
eliminate slavery. What an idiot.
Rob

God - Rob (shaking my head...)...
Kathy K.

[Rob Duncan]

Post by hantayo

Post by Rob Duncan
This "lady" is an idiot extraordinare. The North didnt go to war to
eliminate slavery. What an idiot.
Rob

God - Rob (shaking my head...)...
Kathy K.

What are you going on about now? Your articles author needs some serious
remedial history lessons.


Rob

[Linda Anchell]

Hi Kathy and all,

This is a few days late, but you all seemed to go off! onto a tangent
(rednecks) and then discussing religion etcetera. I'm heavily into
that myself, but manage to believe in a god for everyone, not just a
chosen few...

but. It seemed the original discussion was about a US President's
Second Inaugural Address and what he had said. Maybe all of you from
north America (ie including Michael <g>) know what he said. But it
might help to actually read it.

try http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres32.html or
http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/Lincoln/lincoln-2.html

he talked about slaves, and god and... well here it is:


quote:
"Both parties deprecated war; but one of them would make war rather
than let the nation survive; and the other would accept war rather
than let it perish. And the war came.

One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not
distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the Southern
part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest.
All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war. To
strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for
which the insurgents would rend the Union, even by war; while the
government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the
territorial enlargement of it.

Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which
it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the
conflict might cease with, or even before, the conflict itself should
cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less
fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible, and pray to the
same God; and each invokes his aid against the other. It may seem
strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in
wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us
judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be
answered--that of neither has been answered fully.

The Almighty has his own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of
offenses! for it must needs be that offenses come; but woe to that man
by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery
is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs
come, but which, having continued through his appointed time, he now
wills to remove, and that he gives to both North and South this
terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall
we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which
the believers in a living God always ascribe to him? Fondly do we
hope--fervently do we pray--that this mighty scourge of war may
speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the
wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of
unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn by
the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said
three thousand years ago, so still it must be said, "The judgments of
the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the
right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish
the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him
who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan--to
do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among
ourselves, and with all nations."

Abraham Lincoln. not some modern journalist.

and I still think the Stanford Experiment has something to say to us
in the mess that Australia (my place) as well as US and UK et al, have
got into!

Linda
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~lindafrd/

[hantayo]

Post by Linda Anchell
Hi Kathy and all,
This is a few days late, but you all seemed to go off! onto a tangent
(rednecks) and then discussing religion etcetera. I'm heavily into
that myself, but manage to believe in a god for everyone, not just a
chosen few...
but. It seemed the original discussion was about a US President's
Second Inaugural Address and what he had said.

<snip>

Hi Linda,
Actually the interview with Susan Jacoby (she's director of the Center for
Inquiry, an organization that works to promote science and reason.) is about
the separation of church & state.
Kathy K.


Linda wrote:
Maybe all of you from

Post by Linda Anchell
north America (ie including Michael <g>) know what he said. But it
might help to actually read it.
try http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres32.html or
http://libertyonline.hypermall.com/Lincoln/lincoln-2.html
"Both parties deprecated war; but one of them would make war rather
than let the nation survive; and the other would accept war rather
than let it perish. And the war came.
One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not
distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the Southern
part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest.
All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war. To
strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for
which the insurgents would rend the Union, even by war; while the
government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the
territorial enlargement of it.
Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which
it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the
conflict might cease with, or even before, the conflict itself should
cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less
fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible, and pray to the
same God; and each invokes his aid against the other. It may seem
strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in
wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us
judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be
answered--that of neither has been answered fully.
The Almighty has his own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of
offenses! for it must needs be that offenses come; but woe to that man
by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery
is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs
come, but which, having continued through his appointed time, he now
wills to remove, and that he gives to both North and South this
terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall
we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which
the believers in a living God always ascribe to him? Fondly do we
hope--fervently do we pray--that this mighty scourge of war may
speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the
wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of
unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn by
the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said
three thousand years ago, so still it must be said, "The judgments of
the Lord are true and righteous altogether."
With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the
right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish
the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him
who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan--to
do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among
ourselves, and with all nations."
Abraham Lincoln. not some modern journalist.
and I still think the Stanford Experiment has something to say to us
in the mess that Australia (my place) as well as US and UK et al, have
got into!
Linda
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~lindafrd/

[Linda Anchell]

Hi Kathy,

thanks for pulling me back to reading the interview. I guess
we all leap in in this forum! I was wanting to drag people back to one
aspect of what Jacoby was saying when she used the second inaugural
address of Lincoln.

but on reading more deeply, I heard stuff like this last night on my
own radio (Australian one) with Bishop Richard Holloway from Scotland,
talking about the need to get back to a secularised society. It would
be an interesting discussion to get Jacoby and Holloway together. I
think they might be saying the same thing.
(let alone the Peter Singer stuff as well, found using the link on
your email!)

Its important that we keep talking and reading, and, especially,
thinking!

shalom, salaam, peace, Linda

Post by hantayo

Post by Linda Anchell
Hi Kathy and all,
This is a few days late, but you all seemed to go off! onto a tangent
(rednecks) and then discussing religion etcetera. I'm heavily into
that myself, but manage to believe in a god for everyone, not just a
chosen few...
but. It seemed the original discussion was about a US President's
Second Inaugural Address and what he had said.

<snip>
Hi Linda,
Actually the interview with Susan Jacoby (she's director of the Center for
Inquiry, an organization that works to promote science and reason.) is about
the separation of church & state.
Kathy K.

snipped Lincoln's Second Inaugural address, available at various web
sites
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~lindafrd/

[Michael]

Post by Rob Duncan

Post by hantayo
MOYERS: Susan Jacoby has a problem with all this talk about God in
politics. She comes from a long American tradition of freethinkers
and that's the title of her new book, her fifth. She's director of
the Center for Inquiry, an organization that works to promote
science and reason.
We met the other day for a conversation about religion and politics.
MOYERS: You express a deep concern and fear that since 9/11
patriotism and religion have become inseparable in this country. Why
is that of alarm to you?
JACOBY: It's of alarm first of all because it's such a very
dangerous thing when patriotism and religion become equated. So
often the kind of religion which is melded with patriotism and not
only in America - we see the horrifying implications of it
throughout history- becomes nationalism and militarism and a
complete intolerance for any other point of view. I think it's
dangerous to. the God is on our side thing is extremely dangerous.
And I'd like to go back to something to the Civil War.
MOYERS: Sure.
JACOBY: Lincoln spoke a lot about God. But in a somewhat different
way. His second inaugural address which is so famous and in many
occasions before that he pointed out the real problem in saying that
you consult God for your instructions about how to conduct war or
any form of policy.
Which is that, "Northerners and southerners prayed to the same god,"
he said. But the northern God by that point said, "Slavery was bad.
You must go to war to eliminate it."

This "lady" is an idiot extraordinare. The North didnt go to war to
eliminate slavery. What an idiot.
Rob

They did, Rob. That's not all it was about, but the clash between the
slave economies of the south and the more mechanized economy of the north
was a very large part of it... and of course, its finest documentary result
was the Gettysburg Address, even though Abe penned it a couple of years
before the war actually ended.

Forget the real reasons for war (which are almost always about benefitting
the wealthy or the power-hungry at the expense of everyone else,) and ask
yourself what the soldiers on both sides of America's civil war were they
were fighting for and fighting against... what was important enough to them
that they'd let their leaders talk them into killing their own countrymen
and sometimes even their own kin?

Besides... she was speaking about the different views of what God wants and
permits, not about the war itself.

((U))
M

[ChuckMSRD]

Post by Rob Duncan
This "lady" is an idiot extraordinare. The North didnt go to war to
eliminate slavery. What an idiot.

I saw her on Bill O'reilly. Not very impressive IMO

Chuck

[abdi]

Chuck,

As an registered red neck, how is it that you guys attack personality of
your opposition rather than their arguments,
the fatso (Rush Limbaugh not Dubaya) is still attacking Carter and ... .
Give it a rest it has been like 25 years.
He has accents for all of them. Fascinating. And have you noticed these guys
repeat and repeat like you guys are idiots
which is true.

Post by ChuckMSRD

Post by Rob Duncan
This "lady" is an idiot extraordinare. The North didnt go to war to
eliminate slavery. What an idiot.

I saw her on Bill O'reilly. Not very impressive IMO
Chuck

[GT Tick]

It's refreshing just to know you listen to (actually pretty skinny)
Rush. It's good to know your enemy.

Tick
--
--

Re: O.T. America & Freethinkers...

Group: alt.support.mult-sclerosis Date: Sat, May 22, 2004, 5:13pm
(CDT+5) From: ***@yahoo.com (abdi)
Chuck,
=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0As an registered red neck, how is it that you
guys attack personality of your opposition rather than their arguments,
the fatso (Rush Limbaugh not Dubaya) is still attacking Carter and ... .
Give it a rest it has been like 25 years.
He has accents for all of them. Fascinating. And have you noticed these
guys repeat and repeat like you guys are idiots
which is true.
"ChuckMSRD" <***@aol.com> wrote in message news:***@mb-m16.aol.com...
This "lady" is an idiot extraordinare. The North didnt go to war to
eliminate slavery. What an idiot.
I saw her on Bill O'reilly. Not very impressive IMO
Chuck

*****Don't Cry Because It's Over...Smile Because It Happened.*****

Visit Me At "TICK'S PLACE"
http://community.webtv.net/OLTICK/TICKSPLACE

[bobD]

rush is a stoned drug addict,, for how many years have people listened to a
man stoned out of his gourd on morphine,,?? on his radio show???

your not allowed to be incapacitated when you sign a legal document,, how
can this guy be a figurehead for a way of thinking?? while wacked on
smack.????

all those he despises, that he puts down over the years on his talk show,,
and doing this while blasted by buying ''illegal'' drugs,, to feed his
morphine habit,,,??? he still has a job???

bobD,,,
ps -bush was a cokehead,, C-student??? what??? '' party on wayne'


"GT Tick" <***@webtv.net> wrote in message news:16116-40AF8FB5-***@storefull-3176.bay.webtv.net...
It's refreshing just to know you listen to (actually pretty skinny)
Rush. It's good to know your enemy.

Tick
--
--

Re: O.T. America & Freethinkers...

Group: alt.support.mult-sclerosis Date: Sat, May 22, 2004, 5:13pm
(CDT+5) From: ***@yahoo.com (abdi)
Chuck,
As an registered red neck, how is it that you
guys attack personality of your opposition rather than their arguments,
the fatso (Rush Limbaugh not Dubaya) is still attacking Carter and ... .
Give it a rest it has been like 25 years.
He has accents for all of them. Fascinating. And have you noticed these
guys repeat and repeat like you guys are idiots
which is true.
"ChuckMSRD" <***@aol.com> wrote in message news:***@mb-m16.aol.com...
This "lady" is an idiot extraordinare. The North didnt go to war to
eliminate slavery. What an idiot.
I saw her on Bill O'reilly. Not very impressive IMO
Chuck

*****Don't Cry Because It's Over...Smile Because It Happened.*****

Visit Me At "TICK'S PLACE"
http://community.webtv.net/OLTICK/TICKSPLACE

[hantayo]

Post by bobD
rush is a stoned drug addict,, for how many years have people listened to a
man stoned out of his gourd on morphine,,?? on his radio show???
your not allowed to be incapacitated when you sign a legal document,, how
can this guy be a figurehead for a way of thinking?? while wacked on
smack.????
all those he despises, that he puts down over the years on his talk show,,
and doing this while blasted by buying ''illegal'' drugs,, to feed his
morphine habit,,,??? he still has a job???
bobD,,,
ps -bush was a cokehead,, C-student??? what??? '' party on wayne'

bobD - you are so right! Flush is such a hypocrite & a moron. He has said
over & over again that 'druggies' belong in prison. Put them all in prison &
through away the key - what a jerk!
Kathy K.

Post by bobD
It's refreshing just to know you listen to (actually pretty skinny)
Rush. It's good to know your enemy.
Tick
--
--
Re: O.T. America & Freethinkers...
Group: alt.support.mult-sclerosis Date: Sat, May 22, 2004, 5:13pm
Chuck,
As an registered red neck, how is it that you
guys attack personality of your opposition rather than their arguments,
the fatso (Rush Limbaugh not Dubaya) is still attacking Carter and ... .
Give it a rest it has been like 25 years.
He has accents for all of them. Fascinating. And have you noticed these
guys repeat and repeat like you guys are idiots
which is true.
This "lady" is an idiot extraordinare. The North didnt go to war to
eliminate slavery. What an idiot.
I saw her on Bill O'reilly. Not very impressive IMO
Chuck
*****Don't Cry Because It's Over...Smile Because It Happened.*****
Visit Me At "TICK'S PLACE"
http://community.webtv.net/OLTICK/TICKSPLACE

[ChuckMSRD]

Post by abdi
As an registered red neck, how is it that you guys attack personality of
your opposition rather than their arguments,
the fatso (Rush Limbaugh not Dubaya)
"abdi"

Why is it you mention Limbaugh in all of your posts? Whats the obsession? He is
an entertainer. Red neck? You sir are an ass.

Chuck

[abdi]

Chuck,
Its actually a very valid point. Why do I bring up Red necks and your
hero all the time.
You see there are only two kinds of people who live in the USA. The Red
necks (the followers) and the Americans.
The Americans believe in peace, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Post by ChuckMSRD

Post by abdi
As an registered red neck, how is it that you guys attack personality of
your opposition rather than their arguments,
the fatso (Rush Limbaugh not Dubaya)
"abdi"

Why is it you mention Limbaugh in all of your posts? Whats the obsession? He is
an entertainer. Red neck? You sir are an ass.
Chuck

[Kath]

Post by abdi
Chuck,
Its actually a very valid point. Why do I bring up Red necks and your
hero all the time.
You see there are only two kinds of people who live in the USA. The Red
necks (the followers) and the Americans.
The Americans believe in peace, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

That's a bit simplistic, don't you think? Try not to fall into the
trap of those who say "You're either with us or against us," OK?

KKT

[abdi]

Kath,

You have to make it simple when dealing with rednecks.

Post by Kath

Post by abdi
Chuck,
Its actually a very valid point. Why do I bring up Red necks and your
hero all the time.
You see there are only two kinds of people who live in the USA. The Red
necks (the followers) and the Americans.
The Americans believe in peace, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

That's a bit simplistic, don't you think? Try not to fall into the
trap of those who say "You're either with us or against us," OK?
KKT

[Kath]

Post by abdi
Kath,
You have to make it simple when dealing with rednecks.

Actually, I try not to call people names ... and in the case of
dealing with people who have different ideas, it's a good idea to
listen and see if they make logical sense.

Unfortunately, some of the people to whom you've been addressing
remarks are either ill-informed or poorly reasoned, or a combination
of the two. The only way to deal with those sorts of people is to
respond when you feel like it ... but give up ANY notion of making a
difference in their thinking. It isn't going to happen.

As you probably know, most of the world has a better understanding
of what our administration has done vis-a-vis Iraq than most
Americans do. A combination of propaganda and media ownership has
created the problem, and the inability or unwillingness of people to
become better informed has perpetuated it.

I assume you read the news. Even the more conservative UPI reported
last week that "three major institutions in the Washington power
structure have decided that after almost a full presidential term of
being treated with contempt and abuse by them, it's payback time."

In other words, this administration is bringing shame to itself and
as a result, to those people who continue to espouse their point of
view, and Washington insiders aren't going to help it any longer
[remember Nixon].

Kathie

PS: UPI said that "Those three institutions are: The United States
Army, the Central Intelligence Agency and the old, relatively
moderate but highly experienced Republican leadership in the United
States Senate."

[abdi]

You got to play their game so they understand when the Fatso makes fun of
environmentalist or civil liberty lawyers how it is. Even though they may be
beyond understanding. But a liberal concept is that any red neck is
reformable so ...

Post by Kath

Post by abdi
Kath,
You have to make it simple when dealing with rednecks.

Actually, I try not to call people names ... and in the case of
dealing with people who have different ideas, it's a good idea to
listen and see if they make logical sense.
Unfortunately, some of the people to whom you've been addressing
remarks are either ill-informed or poorly reasoned, or a combination
of the two. The only way to deal with those sorts of people is to
respond when you feel like it ... but give up ANY notion of making a
difference in their thinking. It isn't going to happen.
As you probably know, most of the world has a better understanding
of what our administration has done vis-a-vis Iraq than most
Americans do. A combination of propaganda and media ownership has
created the problem, and the inability or unwillingness of people to
become better informed has perpetuated it.
I assume you read the news. Even the more conservative UPI reported
last week that "three major institutions in the Washington power
structure have decided that after almost a full presidential term of
being treated with contempt and abuse by them, it's payback time."
In other words, this administration is bringing shame to itself and
as a result, to those people who continue to espouse their point of
view, and Washington insiders aren't going to help it any longer
[remember Nixon].
Kathie
PS: UPI said that "Those three institutions are: The United States
Army, the Central Intelligence Agency and the old, relatively
moderate but highly experienced Republican leadership in the United
States Senate."

[Kath]

Post by abdi
You got to play their game so they understand when the Fatso makes fun of
environmentalist or civil liberty lawyers how it is. Even though they may be
beyond understanding. But a liberal concept is that any red neck is
reformable so ...

Well, coming from a large, redneck family, I agree ... but none of
those people were fanatics ... and they CAN'T be reformed. Gotta
learn to tell the difference.

K.

[ChuckMSRD]

Post by abdi
Why do I bring up Red necks and your
hero all the time. abdi

I have yet to hear you bring up my hero

Post by abdi
You see there are only two kinds of people who live in the USA. The Red
necks (the followers) and the Americans.

You're a demented human. I hope you get some help.

Chuck

[GT Tick]

And your point is? Your agenda is?

*****Don't Cry Because It's Over...Smile Because It Happened.*****

Visit Me At "TICK'S PLACE"
http://community.webtv.net/OLTICK/TICKSPLACE

[hantayo]

Post by GT Tick
And your point is? Your agenda is?
*****Don't Cry Because It's Over...Smile Because It Happened.*****
Visit Me At "TICK'S PLACE"
http://community.webtv.net/OLTICK/TICKSPLACE

Tick - I just thought that her (Susan Jacoby) thoughts are refreshing &
points to the importance of the 'separation of church & state'. With bush
being a born again Christian his idea of his God is scary IMO.
I don't have an agenda, Tick............
Kathy K.

[ChuckMSRD]

Post by hantayo
bush
being a born again Christian his idea of his God is scary IMO.

LOL And maniacs chanting God is great as they saw off a mans head with a dull
knife is not frightening. Nor the belief that killing innocent people in a
suicide / homocide bombing will be rewarded by God with 72 virgins is not
scary. Nah. But be sure to point out that Bush's praying every morning and
reading a bible verse is scary as hell! lol oh man what a country!

Chuck

[Rob Duncan]

Post by ChuckMSRD

Post by hantayo
bush
being a born again Christian his idea of his God is scary IMO.

LOL And maniacs chanting God is great as they saw off a mans head with a dull
knife is not frightening. Nor the belief that killing innocent people in a
suicide / homocide bombing will be rewarded by God with 72 virgins is not
scary. Nah. But be sure to point out that Bush's praying every morning and
reading a bible verse is scary as hell! lol oh man what a country!
Chuck

An irony is... the very people she hates are the ones who provide her
freedom to bitch and moan.


Rob

[Kath]

Post by Rob Duncan
An irony is... the very people she hates are the ones who provide her
freedom to bitch and moan.

I read that article. I didn't hear her say that she hated anyone,
although I read that she feared the current administration for its
radicalization of America.

The author seemed to be quite conservative in the traditional sense
of the word insofar as she wants to conserve the values on which
this country was built and fears the possibility that those values
are being overridden by fundamentalists much like the
fundamentalists who have already overtaken much of the Muslim world.

Here's and interesting article:

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/britt_23_2.htm

Fascism Anyone?
Laurence W. Britt

The following article is from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 23,
Number 2.

Free Inquiry readers may pause to read the “Affirmations of
Humanism: A Statement of Principles” on the inside cover of the
magazine. To a secular humanist, these principles seem so logical,
so right, so crucial. Yet, there is one archetypal political
philosophy that is anathema to almost all of these principles. It is
fascism. And fascism’s principles are wafting in the air today,
surreptitiously masquerading as something else, challenging
everything we stand for. The cliché that people and nations learn
from history is not only overused, but also overestimated; often we
fail to learn from history, or draw the wrong conclusions. Sadly,
historical amnesia is the norm.

We are two-and-a-half generations removed from the horrors of Nazi
Germany, although constant reminders jog the consciousness. German
and Italian fascism form the historical models that define this
twisted political worldview. Although they no longer exist, this
worldview and the characteristics of these models have been imitated
by protofascist1 regimes at various times in the twentieth century.
Both the original German and Italian models and the later
protofascist regimes show remarkably similar characteristics.
Although many scholars question any direct connection among these
regimes, few can dispute their visual similarities.

Beyond the visual, even a cursory study of these fascist and
protofascist regimes reveals the absolutely striking convergence of
their modus operandi. This, of course, is not a revelation to the
informed political observer, but it is sometimes useful in the
interests of perspective to restate obvious facts and in so doing
shed needed light on current circumstances.

For the purpose of this perspective, I will consider the following
regimes: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco’s Spain, Salazar’s
Portugal, Papadopoulos’s Greece, Pinochet’s Chile, and Suharto’s
Indonesia. To be sure, they constitute a mixed bag of national
identities, cultures, developmental levels, and history. But they
all followed the fascist or protofascist model in obtaining,
expanding, and maintaining power. Further, all these regimes have
been overthrown, so a more or less complete picture of their basic
characteristics and abuses is possible.

Analysis of these seven regimes reveals fourteen common threads that
link them in recognizable patterns of national behavior and abuse of
power. These basic characteristics are more prevalent and intense in
some regimes than in others, but they all share at least some level
of similarity.

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the
prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel
pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of
the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was
always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands
for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was
usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often
bordered on xenophobia.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes
themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to
realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of
propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights
abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When
abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and
disinformation.

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The
most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of
scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other
problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in
controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda
and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would
incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually
communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial
minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other
religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Active
opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and
dealt with accordingly.

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites
always identified closely with the military and the industrial
infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of
national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic
needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of
nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national
goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige
of the ruling elite.

5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite
and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes
inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were
adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were
usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by
the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover
for its abuses.

6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass
media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon
never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more
subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control
of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to
patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were
often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was
usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the
regimes’ excesses.

7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security
apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was
usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond
any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of
protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was
portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist
regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed
as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached
themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to
portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact
that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts
of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept
up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith
and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that
opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.

9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of
ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large
corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The
ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure
military production (in developed states), but also as an additional
means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often
pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of
interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor
was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political
hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was
inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass,
viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes,
being poor was considered akin to a vice.

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts.
Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression
associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual
and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security
and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled;
politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox
ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or
crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the
national interest or they had no right to exist.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Most of these regimes
maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison
populations. The police were often glorified and had almost
unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political
crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and
sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and
hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the
population as an excuse for more police power.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and
close to the power elite often used their position to enrich
themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would
receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in
turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the
power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other
sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With
the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled,
this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by
the general population.

14. Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of plebiscites or
public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with
candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power
elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining
control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising
opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a
last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.

Does any of this ring alarm bells? Of course not. After all, this is
America, officially a democracy with the rule of law, a
constitution, a free press, honest elections, and a well-informed
public constantly being put on guard against evils. Historical
comparisons like these are just exercises in verbal gymnastics.
Maybe, maybe not.



Note

1. Defined as a “political movement or regime tending toward or
imitating Fascism”—Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary.

References

Andrews, Kevin. Greece in the Dark. Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1980.
Chabod, Frederico. A History of Italian Fascism. London: Weidenfeld,
1963.
Cooper, Marc. Pinochet and Me. New York: Verso, 2001.
Cornwell, John. Hitler as Pope. New York: Viking, 1999.
de Figuerio, Antonio. Portugal—Fifty Years of Dictatorship. New
York: Holmes & Meier, 1976.
Eatwell, Roger. Fascism, A History. New York: Penguin, 1995.
Fest, Joachim C. The Face of the Third Reich. New York: Pantheon, 1970.
Gallo, Max. Mussolini’s Italy. New York: MacMillan, 1973.
Kershaw, Ian. Hitler (two volumes). New York: Norton, 1999.
Laqueur, Walter. Fascism, Past, Present, and Future. New York:
Oxford, 1996.
Papandreau, Andreas. Democracy at Gunpoint. New York: Penguin Books,
1971.
Phillips, Peter. Censored 2001: 25 Years of Censored News. New York:
Seven Stories. 2001.
Sharp, M.E. Indonesia Beyond Suharto. Armonk, 1999.
Verdugo, Patricia. Chile, Pinochet, and the Caravan of Death. Coral
Gables, Florida: North-South Center Press, 2001.
Yglesias, Jose. The Franco Years. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1977.

Laurence Britt’s novel, June, 2004, depicts a future America
dominated by right-wing extremists.

[Kath]

Post by ChuckMSRD

Post by hantayo
bush
being a born again Christian his idea of his God is scary IMO.

LOL And maniacs chanting God is great as they saw off a mans head with a dull
knife is not frightening. Nor the belief that killing innocent people in a
suicide / homocide bombing will be rewarded by God with 72 virgins is not
scary. Nah. But be sure to point out that Bush's praying every morning and
reading a bible verse is scary as hell! lol oh man what a country!

I don't recall anyone like you've described ever being a US
president with an arsenal of nuclear, biological and chemical
weapons. OTOH, that Bush has a rather silly, flawed notion of
Christianity is well-documented.

[GT Tick]

Ok, since I'm not a christian please show me some examples of this
documentation.

Tick
--
--

Re: O.T. America & Freethinkers...

Group: alt.support.mult-sclerosis Date: Sat, May 22, 2004, 10:08am From:
***@hotpop.com (Kath)
ChuckMSRD wrote:
bush
being a born again Christian his idea of his God is scary IMO.
LOL And maniacs chanting God is great as they saw off a mans head with a
dull knife is not frightening. Nor the belief that killing innocent
people in a suicide / homocide bombing will be rewarded by God with 72
virgins is not scary. Nah. But be sure to point out that Bush's praying
every morning and reading a bible verse is scary as hell! lol oh man
what a country!
I don't recall anyone like you've described ever being a US president
with an arsenal of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. OTOH, that
Bush has a rather silly, flawed notion of Christianity is
well-documented.

*****Don't Cry Because It's Over...Smile Because It Happened.*****

Visit Me At "TICK'S PLACE"
http://community.webtv.net/OLTICK/TICKSPLACE

[hantayo]

Post by GT Tick
Ok, since I'm not a christian please show me some examples of this
documentation.
Tick
--
--
Re: O.T. America & Freethinkers...
bush
being a born again Christian his idea of his God is scary IMO.
LOL And maniacs chanting God is great as they saw off a mans head with a
dull knife is not frightening. Nor the belief that killing innocent
people in a suicide / homocide bombing will be rewarded by God with 72
virgins is not scary. Nah. But be sure to point out that Bush's praying
every morning and reading a bible verse is scary as hell! lol oh man
what a country!
I don't recall anyone like you've described ever being a US president
with an arsenal of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. OTOH, that
Bush has a rather silly, flawed notion of Christianity is
well-documented.
*****Don't Cry Because It's Over...Smile Because It Happened.*****
Visit Me At "TICK'S PLACE"
http://community.webtv.net/OLTICK/TICKSPLACE

Tick,
PBS just aired 'Frontline: The Jesus Factor' for the second time on
5/20/04. Bush really believes that 'God' wanted him to be the President. You
can check it out at:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/
&
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/

Kathy K.

[CW]

Post by hantayo

Post by GT Tick
Ok, since I'm not a christian please show me some examples of this
documentation.
Tick
--
--
Re: O.T. America & Freethinkers...
bush
being a born again Christian his idea of his God is scary IMO.
LOL And maniacs chanting God is great as they saw off a mans head with a
dull knife is not frightening. Nor the belief that killing innocent
people in a suicide / homocide bombing will be rewarded by God with 72
virgins is not scary. Nah. But be sure to point out that Bush's praying
every morning and reading a bible verse is scary as hell! lol oh man
what a country!
I don't recall anyone like you've described ever being a US president
with an arsenal of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. OTOH, that
Bush has a rather silly, flawed notion of Christianity is
well-documented.
*****Don't Cry Because It's Over...Smile Because It Happened.*****
Visit Me At "TICK'S PLACE"
http://community.webtv.net/OLTICK/TICKSPLACE

Tick,
PBS just aired 'Frontline: The Jesus Factor' for the second time on
5/20/04. Bush really believes that 'God' wanted him to be the President. You
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/
&
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/
Kathy K.

There's a big difference between GWB and the mullahs. GWB doesn't want to
kill you or me.

CW

[Kath]

Post by CW
There's a big difference between GWB and the mullahs. GWB doesn't want to
kill you or me.

Neither do the mullahs. You might want to read a little something
about Islam before demonizing its adherents. Here are some references:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/040521/481/bei11005211942

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=2&article_id=4166


http://reuters.feedroom.com/index.jsp?auto_band=x&rf=sv&fr_story=730cba8b6b0d6005b758e63a8311c1b60f41090b


http://www.leftturn.org/Articles/Viewer.aspx?id=520&type=M

http://www.juancole.com

KKT

[CW]

Post by Kath

Post by CW
There's a big difference between GWB and the mullahs. GWB doesn't want to
kill you or me.

Neither do the mullahs. You might want to read a little something
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/040521/481/bei11005211942

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=2&article_id=4166
http://reuters.feedroom.com/index.jsp?auto_band=x&rf=sv&fr_story=730cba8b6b0d6005b758e63a8311c1b60f41090b

Post by Kath
http://www.leftturn.org/Articles/Viewer.aspx?id=520&type=M
http://www.juancole.com
KKT

Thank you for the suggestions, Kath, but I studied Islam and Islamic Civ &
political thought for years in college, taught by some of the best in the
field - Hodgson, Lewis, Woods, Rahman, Chambers, Zonis. Perhaps you should
read from some of Lewis' scholarship. Or read translations of mullahs'
current sermons at www.memri.org.

CW

[abdi]

I always thought that the writer's of US constitution were geniuses to
realize the dangers of church, essentially mullahs
are doing what popes did it and Dubaya is doing, they fight their holy wars
and are convinced that God gave them the right to do so. BTW Jews do it too,
Hindus are into it also. Its a fascinating concept church and state and
invariably it leads to massacre of the other guys. Hitler was into it.

Post by CW

Post by Kath

Post by CW
There's a big difference between GWB and the mullahs. GWB doesn't

want

Post by CW
to

Post by Kath

Post by CW
kill you or me.

Neither do the mullahs. You might want to read a little something
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/040521/481/bei11005211942

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=2&article_id=4166
http://reuters.feedroom.com/index.jsp?auto_band=x&rf=sv&fr_story=730cba8b6b0d6005b758e63a8311c1b60f41090b

Post by CW

Post by Kath
http://www.leftturn.org/Articles/Viewer.aspx?id=520&type=M
http://www.juancole.com
KKT

Thank you for the suggestions, Kath, but I studied Islam and Islamic Civ &
political thought for years in college, taught by some of the best in the
field - Hodgson, Lewis, Woods, Rahman, Chambers, Zonis. Perhaps you should
read from some of Lewis' scholarship. Or read translations of mullahs'
current sermons at www.memri.org.
CW

[Michael]

Post by abdi
I always thought that the writer's of US constitution were geniuses to
realize the dangers of church, essentially mullahs
are doing what popes did it and Dubaya is doing, they fight their holy wars
and are convinced that God gave them the right to do so. BTW Jews do it too,
Hindus are into it also. Its a fascinating concept church and state and
invariably it leads to massacre of the other guys. Hitler was into it.

Do I get to invoke Godwin's Law here? :-\

((U))
M

Post by abdi

Post by CW

Post by Kath

Post by CW
There's a big difference between GWB and the mullahs. GWB doesn't want to
kill you or me.

Neither do the mullahs. You might want to read a little something
about Islam before demonizing its adherents. Here are some
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/040521/481/bei11005211942

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=2&article_id=4166
http://reuters.feedroom.com/index.jsp?auto_band=x&rf=sv&fr_story=730cba8b6b0d6005b758e63a8311c1b60f41090b

Post by abdi

Post by CW

Post by Kath
http://www.leftturn.org/Articles/Viewer.aspx?id=520&type=M
http://www.juancole.com
KKT

Thank you for the suggestions, Kath, but I studied Islam and Islamic Civ &
political thought for years in college, taught by some of the best in the
field - Hodgson, Lewis, Woods, Rahman, Chambers, Zonis. Perhaps you

should

Post by CW
read from some of Lewis' scholarship. Or read translations of mullahs'
current sermons at www.memri.org.
CW

[Rob Duncan]

Post by Michael

Post by abdi
I always thought that the writer's of US constitution were geniuses to
realize the dangers of church, essentially mullahs
are doing what popes did it and Dubaya is doing, they fight their holy wars
and are convinced that God gave them the right to do so. BTW Jews do it too,
Hindus are into it also. Its a fascinating concept church and state and
invariably it leads to massacre of the other guys. Hitler was into it.

Do I get to invoke Godwin's Law here? :-\
((U))
M

Bingo!


Rob

Post by Michael

Post by abdi

Post by CW

Post by Kath

Post by CW
There's a big difference between GWB and the mullahs. GWB doesn't want to
kill you or me.

Neither do the mullahs. You might want to read a little something
about Islam before demonizing its adherents. Here are some

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/040521/481/bei11005211942
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=2&article_id=4166
http://reuters.feedroom.com/index.jsp?auto_band=x&rf=sv&fr_story=730cba8b6b0d6005b758e63a8311c1b60f41090b

Post by Michael

Post by abdi

Post by CW

Post by Kath
http://www.leftturn.org/Articles/Viewer.aspx?id=520&type=M
http://www.juancole.com
KKT

Thank you for the suggestions, Kath, but I studied Islam and Islamic Civ &
political thought for years in college, taught by some of the best in the
field - Hodgson, Lewis, Woods, Rahman, Chambers, Zonis. Perhaps you

should

Post by CW
read from some of Lewis' scholarship. Or read translations of mullahs'
current sermons at www.memri.org.
CW

[ChuckMSRD]

Post by CW
Perhaps you should
read from some of Lewis' scholarship. Or read translations of mullahs'
current sermons at www.memri.org.
CW

But Billy Graham, GWB, et al, are just as dangerous ;-)

Chuck

[ChuckMSRD]

Post by Kath
OTOH, that Bush has a rather silly, flawed notion of
Christianity is well-documented.

-Kath

By whom, you? He accepted Christ at a Billy Graham crusade and has been alcohol
free for 15+ years. His biblical Christianity is pretty mainstream and actually
quite comparable to Jimmy Carter's. The fact that you seem upset and scared at
his religiosity yet dont mention "humans" who think God is calling them to kill
as many innocent non-believers as possible is absurd.

Chuck

[Kath]

Post by ChuckMSRD

Post by Kath
OTOH, that Bush has a rather silly, flawed notion of
Christianity is well-documented.

-Kath
By whom, you? He accepted Christ at a Billy Graham crusade and has been alcohol
free for 15+ years. His biblical Christianity is pretty mainstream and actually
quite comparable to Jimmy Carter's. The fact that you seem upset and scared at
his religiosity yet dont mention "humans" who think God is calling them to kill
as many innocent non-believers as possible is absurd.

First, Christians believe in Biblical teachings, such as doing under
others as one would have others do unto you. Bush violates those
precepts with impunity.

Christians believe in helping those who are less fortunate than
themselves. Bush believes that everyone can pull themselves up by
their own bootstraps despite no evidence and never having done it
himself.

I'm sure, if you thought about it and were intent upon being honest,
you could think of a multitude of examples.

Second, I'm not upset or scare by his religiosity, but rather by his
fanaticism. The good done in the name of religion is without
question ... and the horrendous acts committed in its name unbelievable.

As for Bush vs. Jimmy Carter, think again. When has Bush EVER
voluntarily done anything that could be considered public service
[except flip pancakes for a fund raiser]?

And finally, I'd appreciate you not fabricating thoughts for me. I'm
as dismayed by Muslim fundamentalism as I am by Christian
fundamentalism as I am by Jewish fundamentalism. If you're going to
attribute beliefs to me, at least have the courtesy of discerning
what they are before you discuss them.

What was it that someone said, "You, sir ... "
KKT

[hantayo]

Post by ChuckMSRD

Post by hantayo
bush
being a born again Christian his idea of his God is scary IMO.

LOL And maniacs chanting God is great as they saw off a mans head with a dull
knife is not frightening. Nor the belief that killing innocent people in a
suicide / homocide bombing will be rewarded by God with 72 virgins is not
scary. Nah. But be sure to point out that Bush's praying every morning and
reading a bible verse is scary as hell! lol oh man what a country!
Chuck

Chuck,
Look at what Christians have done in the name of their God. Also - how
many innocent women & children have died in Iraq because of bush. He
believes that he is spreading the word of his God. Yeah right - bush has the
ear of the *real* God.
Kathy K.

[ChuckMSRD]

- how
many innocent women & children have died in Iraq because of bush. Kathy K.

300,000 and still counting were raped, tortured, and killed by Husseins regime.
These torture, rape, and murder rooms would still be functioning at this very
moment if he was not overthrown. Was Bush in on that as well?

He
believes that he is spreading the word of his God Kathy K.

Where where WHERE! do you get this stuff? Show me the quote where he says Iraq
was invaded because of his Christian beliefs or that it was done to spread his
beliefs. Iraqi citizens will have freedom to practice their faith. Woman can
now have a glimpse of freedom and self-actualization. Have you heard from
families who had members killed by Hussein? Stop reading your far left, hateful
websites, magazines, et al, and inform yourself just a bit so as to not look so
silly.

Chuck

[hantayo]

Post by ChuckMSRD

- how
many innocent women & children have died in Iraq because of bush. Kathy K.

300,000 and still counting were raped, tortured, and killed by Husseins regime.
These torture, rape, and murder rooms would still be functioning at this very
moment if he was not overthrown. Was Bush in on that as well?

No - but republican administrations support Hussein. Even rummy backed him
(there's a picture of the 2 shaking hands...).

Post by ChuckMSRD

He
believes that he is spreading the word of his God Kathy K.

Where where WHERE! do you get this stuff? Show me the quote where he says Iraq
was invaded because of his Christian beliefs or that it was done to spread his
beliefs. Iraqi citizens will have freedom to practice their faith.

Bush did say that he believes that 'God' wants him (bush) to be the leader
of the free world - what does that say to you?
Born again Christians are all about spreading their word & they believe if
you haven't accepted 'the lord' as your personal savior you are not saved.

Woman can

Post by ChuckMSRD
now have a glimpse of freedom and self-actualization. Have you heard from
families who had members killed by Hussein?

Do you really think that this administration will allow Iraq to have the
government they want?

Stop reading your far left, hateful

Post by ChuckMSRD
websites, magazines, et al, and inform yourself just a bit so as to not look so
silly.
Chuck

Chuck - I can say the same thing to you; "You stop reading your far
*right*, hateful websites, magazines, etc, & inform yourself just a bit so
you don't look so silly...."
Kathy K.

[Rob Duncan]

Post by Kath

Post by ChuckMSRD

- how
many innocent women & children have died in Iraq because of bush. Kathy

K.

Post by ChuckMSRD
300,000 and still counting were raped, tortured, and killed by Husseins

regime.

Post by ChuckMSRD
These torture, rape, and murder rooms would still be functioning at this

very

Post by ChuckMSRD
moment if he was not overthrown. Was Bush in on that as well?

No - but republican administrations support Hussein.

Really? Past administrations supported Hussein? Thus Bush is guilty?
Guilty of what? Did Bush support Iraq?

Post by Kath
Even rummy backed him
(there's a picture of the 2 shaking hands...).

And of course a picture of a diplomat shaking hands with someone is proof
that we as a nation supported everything they did? Nice logic there. NOT.

Post by Kath

Post by ChuckMSRD

He
believes that he is spreading the word of his God Kathy K.

You lie far to often. When has Bush ever said he is "spreading the word"?
When you lie it makes your arguments look even more desperate.

Post by Kath

Post by ChuckMSRD
Where where WHERE! do you get this stuff? Show me the quote where he

says

Post by Kath
Iraq

Post by ChuckMSRD
was invaded because of his Christian beliefs or that it was done to

spread

Post by Kath
his

Post by ChuckMSRD
beliefs. Iraqi citizens will have freedom to practice their faith.

Bush did say that he believes that 'God' wants him (bush) to be the leader
of the free world - what does that say to you?

It says to me that your paranoid and delusional. A link to a quote please.

Post by Kath
Born again Christians are all about spreading their word & they believe if
you haven't accepted 'the lord' as your personal savior you are not saved.

Duh! Doesnt that go without saying? If you dont accept Christ then you
arent saved. Duh. Thats like if you dont accept Torah you arent saved,
like dont accept Islamic beliefs you arent saved. Its part of the religion.

Post by Kath
Woman can

Post by ChuckMSRD
now have a glimpse of freedom and self-actualization. Have you heard from
families who had members killed by Hussein?

Do you really think that this administration will allow Iraq to have the
government they want?

Of course not. Did he say we would? We are FORCING them to have a
democracy. For which they will eventually be thankfull. As EVERYONE knows.

Post by Kath
Stop reading your far left, hateful

Post by ChuckMSRD
websites, magazines, et al, and inform yourself just a bit so as to not

look so

Post by ChuckMSRD
silly.
Chuck

Chuck - I can say the same thing to you; "You stop reading your far
*right*, hateful websites, magazines, etc, & inform yourself just a bit so
you don't look so silly...."
Kathy K.

Kathy, you say some pretty stupid things. Completely unsupported I might
add. Verging on conspiratorial thinking.


Rob

[Kath]

Post by Rob Duncan

Post by hantayo
Do you really think that this administration will allow Iraq to have the
government they want?

Of course not. Did he say we would? We are FORCING them to have a
democracy. For which they will eventually be thankfull. As EVERYONE knows.

Just out of curiosity ... how does one "force" democracy?

1. [n] the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized
group can make decisions binding on the whole group

2. [n] the political orientation of those who favor government by
the people or by their elected representatives

3. [n] a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body
of citizens who can elect people to represent them

Once cannot "force" democracy any more than one can "force" free
choice -- which is an element of democracy.

As for EVERYONE knowing that Iraqis will be thankful ... you gotta
stop drinkin' the Kool-Aid, man. Really.

KKT

[abdi]

In fact it was Bush Sir, and Dumsfeld is photographed shaking hands with
Saddam.

check out the picture http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

Post by Rob Duncan

Post by Kath

Post by ChuckMSRD

- how
many innocent women & children have died in Iraq because of bush. Kathy

K.

Post by ChuckMSRD
300,000 and still counting were raped, tortured, and killed by Husseins

regime.

Post by ChuckMSRD
These torture, rape, and murder rooms would still be functioning at this

very

Post by ChuckMSRD
moment if he was not overthrown. Was Bush in on that as well?

No - but republican administrations support Hussein.

Really? Past administrations supported Hussein? Thus Bush is guilty?
Guilty of what? Did Bush support Iraq?

Post by Kath
Even rummy backed him
(there's a picture of the 2 shaking hands...).

And of course a picture of a diplomat shaking hands with someone is proof
that we as a nation supported everything they did? Nice logic there.

NOT.

Post by Rob Duncan

Post by Kath

Post by ChuckMSRD

He
believes that he is spreading the word of his God Kathy K.

You lie far to often. When has Bush ever said he is "spreading the word"?
When you lie it makes your arguments look even more desperate.

Post by Kath

Post by ChuckMSRD
Where where WHERE! do you get this stuff? Show me the quote where he

says

Post by Kath
Iraq

Post by ChuckMSRD
was invaded because of his Christian beliefs or that it was done to

spread

Post by Kath
his

Post by ChuckMSRD
beliefs. Iraqi citizens will have freedom to practice their faith.

Bush did say that he believes that 'God' wants him (bush) to be the leader
of the free world - what does that say to you?

It says to me that your paranoid and delusional. A link to a quote please.

Post by Kath
Born again Christians are all about spreading their word & they believe if
you haven't accepted 'the lord' as your personal savior you are not saved.

Duh! Doesnt that go without saying? If you dont accept Christ then you
arent saved. Duh. Thats like if you dont accept Torah you arent saved,
like dont accept Islamic beliefs you arent saved. Its part of the religion.

Post by Kath
Woman can

Post by ChuckMSRD
now have a glimpse of freedom and self-actualization. Have you heard

from

Post by Kath

Post by ChuckMSRD
families who had members killed by Hussein?

Do you really think that this administration will allow Iraq to have the
government they want?

Of course not. Did he say we would? We are FORCING them to have a
democracy. For which they will eventually be thankfull. As EVERYONE knows.

Post by Kath
Stop reading your far left, hateful

Post by ChuckMSRD
websites, magazines, et al, and inform yourself just a bit so as to not

look so

Post by ChuckMSRD
silly.
Chuck

Chuck - I can say the same thing to you; "You stop reading your far
*right*, hateful websites, magazines, etc, & inform yourself just a bit so
you don't look so silly...."
Kathy K.

Kathy, you say some pretty stupid things. Completely unsupported I might
add. Verging on conspiratorial thinking.
Rob

[Kath]

Post by abdi
In fact it was Bush Sir, and Dumsfeld is photographed shaking hands with
Saddam.
check out the picture http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

We've had this discussion before ... before you joined in political
discussions. Someone said that Rumsfeld wasn't in the government
during that time and I recall posting part of his resume saying that
he was a special US envoy appointed by Reagan. Still, the same
people keep saying the same silly things. <sigh>

KKT

[Kath]

Post by ChuckMSRD

- how
many innocent women & children have died in Iraq because of bush. Kathy K.

300,000 and still counting were raped, tortured, and killed by Husseins regime.
These torture, rape, and murder rooms would still be functioning at this very
moment if he was not overthrown. Was Bush in on that as well?

Actually, it appears that they're now under new management.

Post by ChuckMSRD

He
believes that he is spreading the word of his God Kathy K.

Where where WHERE! do you get this stuff? Show me the quote where he says Iraq
was invaded because of his Christian beliefs or that it was done to spread his
beliefs. Iraqi citizens will have freedom to practice their faith. Woman can
now have a glimpse of freedom and self-actualization. Have you heard from
families who had members killed by Hussein? Stop reading your far left, hateful
websites, magazines, et al, and inform yourself just a bit so as to not look so
silly.

Well, he told a televangelist that he felt that God wanted him to be
president [you'll have to check to see which one; I don't recall].
He referred to the war against terror as a "crusade" and Richard
Land, of the Southern Baptist Convention, recalls Bush once saying,
"I believe God wants me to be president."

As for Iraqi citizens ... First, they had the freedom to practice
their faith under Saddam. That country was secular with practicing
Muslims, Christians and Jews during Hussein's regime.

Second, in terms of women's rights, it was the most advanced of
Middle Eastern countries under Hussein. Note:

"For the past four decades, Iraqi women have enjoyed some of the
most modern legal protections in the Muslim world, under a civil
code that prohibits marriage below the age of 18, arbitrary divorce
and male favoritism in child custody and property inheritance disputes.

"Saddam Hussein's dictatorship did not touch those rights. But the
U.S.-backed Iraqi Governing Council has voted to wipe them out,
ordering in late December that family laws shall be "canceled" and
such issues placed under the jurisdiction of strict Islamic legal
doctrine known as sharia.

"This week, outraged Iraqi women -- from judges to cabinet ministers
-- denounced the decision in street protests and at conferences,
saying it would set back their legal status by centuries and could
unleash emotional clashes among various Islamic strains that have
differing rules for marriage, divorce and other family issues."
http://tinyurl.com/yqzv8

NOTE TO ABDI: See? ... not very well informed.

KKT

[ChuckMSRD]

Post by Kath
Actually, it appears that they're now under new management.

Ted Kennedy Crappola! So you are comparing the terrible mistreatment of
prisoners with the systemic killing and torturing of 300,000 men, women, and
children. KILLING, Kath! Read some testimonies of people having their hands cut
off or their tongues cut out. I thought when Ted Kennedy said this it was
abominible. Your repeating it is just as disgraceful!

Post by Kath
Well, he told a televangelist that he felt that God wanted him to be
president

Any person of sincere faith believes God has a calling for their life. Ive
heard hundreds of Christians tell me, "God has called me into missions,
healthcare, charity, politics..... key word is he *felt* God leading him that
way. He had the chance with his family influences. A lot to do about nothing.
and as was mentioned you have very consipratorial tendencies.

Post by Kath
"Saddam Hussein's dictatorship did not touch those rights. But the
U.S.-backed Iraqi Governing Council has voted to wipe them out,

So they were better under Sadaam? Open up the rape and torture rooms and start
living!
Crazy mind

Chuck

[Kath]

Post by ChuckMSRD

Post by Kath
Actually, it appears that they're now under new management.

Ted Kennedy Crappola! So you are comparing the terrible mistreatment of
prisoners with the systemic killing and torturing of 300,000 men, women, and
children. KILLING, Kath! Read some testimonies of people having their hands cut
off or their tongues cut out. I thought when Ted Kennedy said this it was
abominible. Your repeating it is just as disgraceful!

Actually, I don't appreciate you comparing MY government to Saddam
Hussein. Despite the fact that yes, people have been killed during
interrogations, both in Iraq and in Afghanistan [2 were already
ruled homicide], and perhaps in Guantanamo, and despite the fact
that the IRAQIS themselves are comparing this to Hussein's regime
[perhaps they expected more of us], I still think that America is
better.

The disgrace is suggesting that America's motto should be "better
than Saddam Hussein."

And the hubris is failing to acknowledge the US's behaviors which is
the first step to changing them. "La la la ... everything's OK" is
not a sufficient response to real concerns. Neither is outrage at
someone who fails to cheerlead.

Post by ChuckMSRD

Post by Kath
Well, he told a televangelist that he felt that God wanted him to be
president

Any person of sincere faith believes God has a calling for their life. Ive
heard hundreds of Christians tell me, "God has called me into missions,
healthcare, charity, politics..... key word is he *felt* God leading him that
way. He had the chance with his family influences. A lot to do about nothing.
and as was mentioned you have very consipratorial tendencies.

A lot of people believe that they're called to a life of service. No
one that I've ever heard of has said that he's called to be
President of the United States.

I notice that you chose only ONE example. Unfortunately, taken
together, Bush's fanaticism leads one to two possible conclusions:
One, he's either messianic and therefore dangerous, or two, he's
playing to his base, he's not dangerous -- he's just a good politician.

Post by ChuckMSRD

Post by Kath
"Saddam Hussein's dictatorship did not touch those rights. But the
U.S.-backed Iraqi Governing Council has voted to wipe them out,

So they were better under Sadaam? Open up the rape and torture rooms and start
living! > Crazy mind

Well, it's clear that the rape and torture rooms ARE open. You might
want to read some of the accounts in the national and international
press. It's horrible, worse is yet to come, and it was clearly
planned and/or sanctioned at very high levels of our government.
Just today, it's reported that General Sanchez was present during
"interrogations and/or allegations of the prisoner abuse."

Moreover, our government specifically sanctioned these behaviors.
Better than Hussein? Then start acting like it!

And yes, the majority of women were better off under Hussein than
they are under the chaos that the US has brought to that country
through poor planning, too few troops on the ground, and a failure
in execution of whatever plan they had.

Chuck, if you had read the information that has been available for
months, you'd know that there HAD been better war planning and that
this administration just ignored it. They ignored people who were
conversant with the region, they ignored their own State Department,
and, instead, chose to believe someone who had left the country when
he was 8 years old in mid 1950s.

Note that the very worst of the insurgency didn't start until a
couple of months ago. By that time, the US had been an occupying
power for more than a year. It's clear that we had a window of
opportunity that we failed to use effectively.

After giving us a year to provide the even the necessities that they
had before the war, the Iraqi people decided that having the US get
out would be the only solution [82% of those Iraqis polled want us
out]. Whatever goodwill we had for removing Hussein has long since
dissipated. Riverbend writes:

"I sometimes get emails asking me to propose solutions or make
suggestions. Fine. Today's lesson: don't rape, don't torture, don't
kill and get out while you can- while it still looks like you have a
choice... Chaos? Civil war? Bloodshed? We’ll take our chances- just
take your Puppets, your tanks, your smart weapons, your dumb
politicians, your lies, your empty promises, your rapists, your
sadistic torturers and go." May 7th, http://tinyurl.com/27zzx

Even though I didn't and don't support this war, once Bush decided
to do it, he had an obligation to the Iraqi people and he has failed
so miserably in that obligation that they don't want us there ...
even knowing that civil war and greater chaos could ensue. That's
what's disgraceful ... that the possibility of civil war and chaos
are preferable to us in the minds of 82% of Iraqi people.

KKT

[CW]

Post by Kath
Well, it's clear that the rape and torture rooms ARE open. You might
want to read some of the accounts in the national and international
press. It's horrible, worse is yet to come, and it was clearly
planned and/or sanctioned at very high levels of our government.
Just today, it's reported that General Sanchez was present during
"interrogations and/or allegations of the prisoner abuse."

Kath, that widely circulated story has been denied and the military has
challenged the press to show its evidence. The military doesn't throw down
that gauntlet if it knows that there's a possibility of the gauntlet being
picked up and getting smacked by it.

CW

[Michael]

Post by CW

Post by Kath
Well, it's clear that the rape and torture rooms ARE open. You might
want to read some of the accounts in the national and international
press. It's horrible, worse is yet to come, and it was clearly
planned and/or sanctioned at very high levels of our government.
Just today, it's reported that General Sanchez was present during
"interrogations and/or allegations of the prisoner abuse."

Kath, that widely circulated story has been denied and the military
has challenged the press to show its evidence. The military doesn't
throw down that gauntlet if it knows that there's a possibility of
the gauntlet being picked up and getting smacked by it.
CW

It looks more to me as though a certain captain has been told to keep his
effing mouth shut, or else.

----
From:
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/FlashNewsStory.aspx?FlashOID=17402

The Post said the military lawyer, Captain Robert Shuck, made the
allegations at a military hearing on April 2.

Shuck is defending Staff Sergeant Ivan Frederick, one of seven U.S. soldiers
accused of abuses at the prison. One pleaded guilty Wednesday and was kicked
out of the army and sentenced to a year in jail.

According to a recording of the hearing obtained by The Post, Shuck said a
captain at the prison, Donald Reese, had told him Sanchez was aware of what
was taking place.

"Are you saying that Captain Reese is going to testify that General Sanchez
was there and saw this going on?" the military prosecutor asked, according
to the transcript of the proceedings.

"That's what he told me," Shuck said.

Shuck was quoted as saying: "...it has come to my knowledge that Lieutenant
General Sanchez was even present at the prison during some of these
interrogations and/or allegations of the prisoner abuse by those duty
(noncommissioned officers)."

The hearing was held at Camp Victory in Baghdad, the newspaper said.
----

The captain never testified, refusing to incriminate himself in the absence
of any offer of immunity for such crucial testimony.

This denial isn't exactly based on an airtight alibi, is it?

((U))
M

[Kath]

Post by CW
Kath, that widely circulated story has been denied and the military has
challenged the press to show its evidence. The military doesn't throw down
that gauntlet if it knows that there's a possibility of the gauntlet being
picked up and getting smacked by it.

The military promised in June, 2003 that there would be nothing like
torture. It then failed to investigate it when told that it existed
by the ICRC. After that, it spent a great deal of time on the "few
bad apples" theory. Each of those positions has been found to be lies.

Now, a lower level military officer has accused Sanchez of being
involved.

Don't you think we should at least wait for the evidence before
making a decision about the credibility of that evidence? And given
the history of the military on this issue in the last year, isn't it
reasonable to at least suspect that the military officer making the
accusation might be correct?

KKT

[Kath]

Post by ChuckMSRD
Where where WHERE! do you get this stuff? Show me the quote where he says Iraq
was invaded because of his Christian beliefs or that it was done to spread his
beliefs. Iraqi citizens will have freedom to practice their faith. Woman can
now have a glimpse of freedom and self-actualization. Have you heard from
families who had members killed by Hussein? Stop reading your far left, hateful
websites, magazines, et al, and inform yourself just a bit so as to not look so
silly.

This was written by and Iraqi woman. Read it and learn:
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/2003_08_01_riverbendblog_archive.html

*About Riverbend*
A lot of you have been asking about my background and the reason why
my English is good. I am Iraqi- born in Iraq to Iraqi parents, but
was raised abroad for several years as a child. I came back in my
early teens and continued studying in English in Baghdad- reading
any book I could get my hands on. Most of my friends are of
different ethnicities, religions and nationalities. I am bilingual.
There are thousands in Iraq like me- kids of diplomats, students,
ex-patriots, etc.

As to my connection with Western culture… you wouldn’t believe how
many young Iraqi people know so much about American/British/French
pop culture. They know all about Arnold Schwarzenegger, Brad Pitt,
Whitney Houston, McDonalds, and M.I.B.s… Iraqi tv stations were
constantly showing bad copies of the latest Hollywood movies. (If
it’s any consolation, the Marines lived up to the Rambo/ Terminator
reputation which preceded them.)

But no matter what- I shall remain anonymous. I wouldn’t feel free
to write otherwise. I think Salam and Gee are incredibly brave… who
knows, maybe one day I will be too. You know me as Riverbend, you
share a very small part of my daily reality- I hope that will suffice.


*Saturday, August 23, 2003*
*We've Only Just Begun...*

Females can no longer leave their homes alone. Each time I go out,
E. and either a father, uncle or cousin has to accompany me. It
feels like we’ve gone back 50 years ever since the beginning of the
occupation. A woman, or girl, out alone, risks anything from insults
to abduction. An outing has to be arranged at least an hour
beforehand. I state that I need to buy something or have to visit
someone. Two males have to be procured (preferably large) and
'safety arrangements' must be made in this total state of
lawlessness. And always the question: "But do you have to go out and
buy it? Can't I get it for you?" No you can't, because the kilo of
eggplant I absolutely have to select with my own hands is just an
excuse to see the light of day and walk down a street. The situation
is incredibly frustrating to females who work or go to college.

Before the war, around 50% of the college students were females, and
over 50% of the working force was composed of women. Not so anymore.
We are seeing an increase of fundamentalism in Iraq which is
terrifying.

For example, before the war, I would estimate (roughly) that about
55% of females in Baghdad wore a hijab- or headscarf. Hijabs do not
signify fundamentalism. That is far from the case- although I,
myself, don’t wear one, I have family and friends who do. The point
is that, before, it didn’t really matter. It was *my* business
whether I wore one or not- not the business of some fundamentalist
on the street.

For those who don’t know (and I have discovered they are many more
than I thought), a hijab only covers the hair and neck. The whole
face shows and some women even wear it Grace Kelley style with a few
locks of hair coming out of the front. A ‘burqa’ on the other hand,
like the ones worn in Afghanistan, covers the whole head- hair, face
and all.

I am female and Muslim. Before the occupation, I more or less
dressed the way I wanted to. I lived in jeans and cotton pants and
comfortable shirts. Now, I don’t dare leave the house in pants. A
long skirt and loose shirt (preferably with long sleeves) has become
necessary. A girl wearing jeans risks being attacked, abducted or
insulted by fundamentalists who have been… liberated!

Fathers and mothers are keeping their daughters stashed safe at
home. That’s why you see so few females in the streets (especially
after 4 pm). Others are making their daughters, wives and sisters
wear a hijab. Not to oppress them, but to protect them.

I lost my job for a similar reason. I’ll explain the whole
depressing affair in another post. Girls are being made to quit
college and school. My 14-year-old cousin (a straight-A student) is
going to have to repeat the year because her parents decided to keep
her home ever since the occupation. Why? Because the Supreme Council
of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq overtook an office next to her
school and opened up a special ‘bureau’.

Men in black turbans (M.I.B.T.s as opposed to M.I.B.s) and dubious,
shady figures dressed in black, head to foot, stand around the gates
of the bureau in clusters, scanning the girls and teachers entering
the secondary school. The dark, frowning figures stand ogling,
leering and sometimes jeering at the ones not wearing a hijab or
whose skirts aren’t long enough. In some areas, girls risk being
attacked with acid if their clothes aren’t ‘proper’.

The Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI- but I
prefer ‘SCAREY’) was established in 1982 in Tehran. Its main goal is
to import the concept of the “Islamic Revolution” from Iran to Iraq.
In other words, they believe that Iraq should be a theocracy led by
Shi’a Mullahs. Abdul Aziz Al-Hakim, the deputy leader of SCIRI, is a
part of the nine-member rotating presidency and will soon have a go
at ruling Iraq.

The SCIRI would like to give the impression that they have the full
support of all Shi’a Muslims in Iraq. The truth is that many Shi’a
Muslims are terrified of them and of the consequences of having them
as a ruling power. Al-Hakim was responsible for torturing and
executing Iraqi POWs in Iran all through the Iran-Iraq war and
after. Should SCIRI govern Iraq, I imagine the first step would be
to open the borders with Iran and unite the two countries. Bush can
then stop referring to the two countries as a part of his infamous
‘Axis of Evil’ and can just begin calling us the ‘Big Lump of Evil
and Bad North Korea’ (which seems more in accord with his limited
linguistic abilities).

Ever since entering Iraq, Al-Hakim has been blackmailing the CPA in
Baghdad with his ‘major Shi’a following’. He entered Iraq escorted
by ‘Jaysh Badir’ or ‘Badir’s Army’. This ‘army’ is composed of
thousands of Iraqi extremists led by Iranian extremists and trained
in Iran. All through the war, they were lurking on the border,
waiting for a chance to slip inside. In Baghdad, and the south, they
have been a source of terror and anxiety to Sunnis, Shi’a and
Christians alike. They, and some of their followers, were
responsible for a large portion of the looting and the burning
(you’d think they were going to get reconstruction contracts…). They
were also responsible for hundreds of religious and political
abductions and assassinations.

The whole situation is alarming beyond any description I can give.
Christians have become the victims of extremism also. Some of them
are being threatened, others are being attacked. A few wannabe
Mullahs came out with a ‘fatwa’, or decree, in June that declared
all females should wear the hijab and if they didn’t, they could be
subject to ‘punishment’. Another group claiming to be a part of the
‘Hawza Al Ilmia’ decreed that not a single girl over the age of 14
could remain unmarried- even if it meant that some members of the
Hawza would have to have two, three or four wives. This decree
included females of other religions. In the south, female UN and Red
Cross aides received death threats if they didn’t wear the hijab.
This isn’t done in the name of God- it’s done in the name of power.
It tells people- the world- that “Look- we have power, we have
influence.”

Liquor stores are being attacked and bombed. The owner usually gets
a ‘threat’ in the form of a fatwa claiming that if they didn’t shut
down the store permanently, there would be consequences. The
consequences are usually either a fire, or a bomb. Similar threats
have been made to hair-dressers in some areas in Baghdad. It’s
frightening and appalling, but true.

Don’t blame it on Islam. Every religion has its extremists. In times
of chaos and disorder, those extremists flourish. Iraq is full of
moderate Muslims who simply believe in ‘live and let live’. We get
along with each other- Sunnis and Shi’a, Muslims and Christians and
Jews and Sabi’a. We intermarry, we mix and mingle, we live. We build
our churches and mosques in the same areas, our children go to the
same schools… it was never an issue.

Someone asked me if, through elections, the Iraqi people might vote
for an Islamic state. Six months ago, I would have firmly said,
“No.” Now, I’m not so sure. There’s been an overwhelming return to
fundamentalism. People are turning to religion for several reasons.

The first and most prominent reason is fear. Fear of war, fear of
death and fear of a fate worse than death (and yes, there are fates
worse than death). If I didn’t have something to believe in during
this past war, I know I would have lost my mind. If there hadn’t
been a God to pray to, to make promises to, to bargain with, to
thank- I wouldn’t have made it through.

Encroaching western values and beliefs have also played a prominent
role in pushing Iraqis to embrace Islam. Just as there are ignorant
people in the Western world (and there are plenty- I have the emails
to prove it… don’t make me embarrass you), there are ignorant people
in the Middle East. In Muslims and Arabs, Westerners see suicide
bombers, terrorists, ignorance and camels. In Americans, Brits, etc.
some Iraqis see depravity, prostitution, ignorance, domination,
junkies and ruthlessness. The best way people can find to protect
themselves, and their loved ones, against this assumed threat is
religion.

Finally, you have more direct reasons. 65% of all Iraqis are
currently unemployed for one reason or another. There are people who
have families to feed. When I say ‘families’ I don’t mean a wife and
2 kids… I mean around 16 or 17 people. Islamic parties supported by
Iran, like Al-Daawa and SCIRI, are currently recruiting followers by
offering ‘wages’ to jobless men (an ex-soldier in the army, for
example) in trade of ‘support’. This support could mean anything-
vote when the elections come around, bomb a specific shop,
‘confiscate’, abduct, hijack cars (only if you work for Al-Chalabi…).

So concerning the anxiety over terror and fundamentalism- I would
like to quote the Carpenters- worry? “We’ve only just begun… we’ve
only just begun…”

*Thursday, August 28, 2003*
*The Promise and the Threat*

The Myth: Iraqis, prior to occupation, lived in little beige tents
set up on the sides of little dirt roads all over Baghdad. The men
and boys would ride to school on their camels, donkeys and goats.
These schools were larger versions of the home units and for every
100 students, there was one turban-wearing teacher who taught the
boys rudimentary math (to count the flock) and reading. Girls and
women sat at home, in black burkas, making bread and taking care of
10-12 children.

The Truth: Iraqis lived in houses with running water and
electricity. Thousands of them own computers. Millions own VCRs and
VCDs. Iraq has sophisticated bridges, recreational centers, clubs,
restaurants, shops, universities, schools, etc. Iraqis love fast
cars (especially German cars) and the Tigris is full of little motor
boats that are used for everything from fishing to water-skiing.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that most people choose to ignore
the little prefix ‘re’ in the words ‘rebuild’ and ‘reconstruct’. For
your information, ‘re’ is of Latin origin and generally means
‘again’ or ‘anew’.

In other words- there was something there in the first place. We
have hundreds of bridges. We have one of the most sophisticated
network of highways in the region: you can get from Busrah, in the
south, to Mosul, in the north, without once having to travel upon
those little, dusty, dirt roads they show you on Fox News. We had a
communications system so advanced, it took the Coalition of the
Willing 3 rounds of bombing, on 3 separate nights, to damage the
Ma’moun Communications Tower and silence our telephones.

Yesterday, I read how it was going to take up to $90 billion to
rebuild Iraq. Bremer was shooting out numbers about how much it was
going to cost to replace buildings and bridges and electricity, etc.

Listen to this little anecdote. One of my cousins works in a
prominent engineering company in Baghdad- we’ll call the company H.
This company is well-known for designing and building bridges all
over Iraq. My cousin, a structural engineer, is a bridge freak. He
spends hours talking about pillars and trusses and steel structures
to anyone who’ll listen.

As May was drawing to a close, his manager told him that someone
from the CPA wanted the company to estimate the building costs of
replacing the New Diyala Bridge on the South East end of Baghdad. He
got his team together, they went out and assessed the damage,
decided it wasn’t too extensive, but it would be costly. They did
the necessary tests and analyses (mumblings about soil composition
and water depth, expansion joints and girders) and came up with a
number they tentatively put forward- $300,000. This included new
plans and designs, raw materials (quite cheap in Iraq), labor,
contractors, travel expenses, etc.

Let’s pretend my cousin is a dolt. Let’s pretend he hasn’t been
working with bridges for over 17 years. Let’s pretend he didn’t work
on replacing at least 20 of the 133 bridges damaged during the first
Gulf War. Let’s pretend he’s wrong and the cost of rebuilding this
bridge is four times the number they estimated- let’s pretend it
will actually cost $1,200,000. Let’s just use our imagination.

A week later, the New Diyala Bridge contract was given to an
American company. This particular company estimated the cost of
rebuilding the bridge would be around- brace yourselves- $50,000,000 !!

Something you should know about Iraq: we have over 130,000
engineers. More than half of these engineers are structural
engineers and architects. Thousands of them were trained outside of
Iraq in Germany, Japan, America, Britain and other countries.
Thousands of others worked with some of the foreign companies that
built various bridges, buildings and highways in Iraq. The majority
of them are more than proficient- some of them are brilliant.

Iraqi engineers had to rebuild Iraq after the first Gulf War in 1991
when the ‘Coalition of the Willing’ was composed of over 30
countries actively participating in bombing Baghdad beyond
recognition. They had to cope with rebuilding bridges and buildings
that were originally built by foreign companies, they had to get
around a lack of raw materials that we used to import from abroad,
they had to work around a vicious blockade designed to damage
whatever infrastructure was left after the war… they truly had to
rebuild Iraq. And everything had to be made sturdy, because, well,
we were always under the threat of war.

Over a hundred of the 133 bridges were rebuilt, hundreds of
buildings and factories were replaced, communications towers were
rebuilt, new bridges were added, electrical power grids were
replaced… things were functioning. Everything wasn’t perfect- but we
were working on it.

And Iraqis aren’t easy to please. Buildings cannot just be made
functionary. They have to have artistic touches- a carved pillar, an
intricately designed dome, something unique… not necessarily classy
or subtle, but different. You can see it all over Baghdad-
fashionable homes with plate glass windows, next to classic old
‘Baghdadi’ buildings, gaudy restaurants standing next to classy
little cafes… mosques with domes so colorful and detailed they look
like glamorous Faberge eggs… all done by Iraqis.

My favorite reconstruction project was the Mu’alaq Bridge over the
Tigris. It is a suspended bridge that was designed and built by a
British company. In 1991 it was bombed and everyone just about gave
up on ever being able to cross it again. By 1994, it was up again,
exactly as it was- without British companies, with Iraqi expertise.
One of the art schools decided that although it wasn’t the most
sophisticated bridge in the world, it was going to be the most
glamorous. On the day it was opened to the public, it was covered
with hundreds of painted flowers in the most outrageous colors- all
over the pillars, the bridge itself, the walkways along the sides of
the bridge. People came from all over Baghdad just to stand upon it
and look down into the Tigris.

So instead of bringing in thousands of foreign companies that are
going to want billions of dollars, why aren’t the Iraqi engineers,
electricians and laborers being taken advantage of? Thousands of
people who have no work would love to be able to rebuild Iraq… no
one is being given a chance.

The reconstruction of Iraq is held above our heads like a promise
and a threat. People roll their eyes at reconstruction because they
know (Iraqis are wily) that these dubious reconstruction projects
are going to plunge the country into a national debt only comparable
to that of America. A few already rich contractors are going to get
richer, Iraqi workers are going to be given a pittance and the
unemployed Iraqi public can stand on the sidelines and look at the
glamorous buildings being built by foreign companies.

I always say this war is about oil. It is. But it is also about huge
corporations that are going to make billions off of reconstructing
what was damaged during this war. Can you say Haliburton? (Which, by
the way, got the very first contracts to replace the damaged oil
infrastructure and put out ‘oil fires’ way back in April).

Well, of course it’s going to take uncountable billions to rebuild
Iraq, Mr. Bremer, if the contracts are all given to foreign
companies! Or perhaps the numbers are this frightening because Ahmad
Al-Chalabi is the one doing the books- he *is* the math expert,
after all.

[Gary Stone]

Martin Luther of the 16th century had many published writings about this
kind of thing. He was lucky to escape execution by the church

MOGG

Post by hantayo
MOYERS: Susan Jacoby has a problem with all this talk about God in politics.
She comes from a long American tradition of freethinkers and that's the
title of her new book, her fifth. She's director of the Center for Inquiry,
an organization that works to promote science and reason.
We met the other day for a conversation about religion and politics.
MOYERS: You express a deep concern and fear that since 9/11 patriotism and
religion have become inseparable in this country. Why is that of alarm to
you?
JACOBY: It's of alarm first of all because it's such a very dangerous thing
when patriotism and religion become equated. So often the kind of religion
which is melded with patriotism and not only in America - we see the
horrifying implications of it throughout history- becomes nationalism and
militarism and a complete intolerance for any other point of view. I think
it's dangerous to. the God is on our side thing is extremely dangerous. And
I'd like to go back to something to the Civil War.
MOYERS: Sure.
JACOBY: Lincoln spoke a lot about God. But in a somewhat different way. His
second inaugural address which is so famous and in many occasions before
that he pointed out the real problem in saying that you consult God for your
instructions about how to conduct war or any form of policy.
Which is that, "Northerners and southerners prayed to the same god," he
said. But the northern God by that point said, "Slavery was bad. You must go
to war to eliminate it." And the southern God who spoke to southerners at
that time said, "The Bible supports slavery. God and slavery are one."
Isn't that a perfect example of the danger of looking to the divine to solve
human problems? People's God speaks to them in different voices. The Civil
War is the perfect example of it.
MOYERS: Abraham Lincoln belonged to no church. He refused in fact to join a
church during his first campaign even though his political advisors urged
him to do so because it would help his election.
Do you think Abraham Lincoln could be elected president today?
JACOBY: No. I don't think he would be nominated today. I don't think anyone
who doesn't belong. I don't think an atheist who called himself an atheist
could be nominated. But I also think it would be quite impossible - anyone
who didn't belong to a church would be immediately suspect today.
Look what happens even when Howard Dean was tarred with the dreaded S-word
for secular and the issue of whether he was too secular a person to be
nominated was raised. Instead of saying, which I would like to see a
candidate say, instead of saying my religious beliefs are my own. Which
Jefferson and Washington and Madison and the early president said and
Lincoln too. Instead of saying my religious beliefs are my own but I
believe, "Yes in secular government." And in an absolutely separation of
church and state.
He suddenly discovered, "Well I pray ever day. And I'm trying to become more
comfortable" he said "with discussing my religion in public." Why should we
be expecting a candidate to be, quote, "comfortable with discussing his
religion in public?"
MOYERS: Why should you be so concerned? You're free to think as you think,
to believe as you believe, to be the atheist you are. No one is trying to
take that away from you or dampen your belief system, are they? Is that.
JACOBY: Well, it.
MOYERS: Aren't you protected by the Constitution and the First Amendment?
JACOBY: I am protected. I can believe what I want. But there is another
issue. It's not merely one of protection of individual belief. It's also the
other side of it, the side of it that's the constitutional, the no religious
tests. Supreme power to "We the people." Which is the protection of
government from religion.
And that's where I think religion is well protected from government in this
country now as it always has been. Where we're falling down as a result of
developments and the great rise of the religious right during the past 30
years is in the protection of government from religion.
MOYERS: What leads you to conclude that?
JACOBY: A myriad of actions on every front. The open espousal of faith based
programs, the appointment of judges who have expressed open contempt for
separation of church and state. Judge Pryor the former Alabama Attorney
General who was appointed by Bush when Congress was in recess to bypass the
Senate confirmation process.
I just came across a speech he made in defense at a rally in favor of Judge
Moore. He of the two-ton Ten Commandments monument. And Judge Prior said. he
said in this speech, he said, "Now is the time for all Christians,
Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants to take back our country and our
courts."
I think that the appointment of such a judge which President Bush went out
of his way to do. I think that statement should disqualify anyone for a
federal judgeship. No federal judge should be saying, "Now is the time for
Christians to take back our country and our courts."
Our country and our courts were never Christians. They never were Christian.
They aren't Christians to take back because they were never intended to be
Christian. So the kinds of judges that President Bush has appointed and
would continue to appoint certainly if he's reelected. Are judges who have
contempt for separation of church and state.
And Bush has also meant in many other government programsm, for instance,
the towing of the line on abortion. Bush's decision on stem cell research
which most leading scientists believe has already really hampered American
research. Because they regard research on embryos as a form of abortion.
It is having personal religious faith, his, determine public policy in a way
that no president has ever done before.
MOYERS: How do you.
JACOBY: Including Ronald Reagan.
MOYERS: Who was a man of.
JACOBY: Who was conservative but not nearly as conservative on religious
issues.
MOYERS: Well the father of modern conservatism, Barry Goldwater was very
much opposed.
JACOBY: Very much opposed to it. He made a speech which I think I can't even
quote on public television on the floor of the Senate in 1980 basically
saying, "If one more blankety-blank preacher tries to tell me how I should
vote and if God is going to be. to strike me dead if I don't vote this way
I've had enough of it." I'm putting this in more polite language than Barry.
You can say anything on the floor of the Senate.
MOYERS: And they do. And then they.
JACOBY: And they had a Federal Communications Commission doesn't censure it.
MOYERS: And then they erase it the next day on the Congressional Record. How
do you explain that I'm going to get a lot of vitriolic mail because of what
you're saying on this show?
JACOBY: I think certainly, certainly judging from my email, people send me
email praising what I have to say and denigrating what I have to say. The
praise is always more measured than the denigration which of course tells me
I'm going to hell. And it's really in a rage that I don't share their point
of view and the point of view is being presented. Even though their point of
view is being presented on hundreds of radio shows.
MOYERS: Oh yeah.
JACOBY: .even as we speak right now. It's not as though the point of view of
the Christian right is not well presented. We do not dominate. We
secularists do not dominate the public square.
I think one of the brilliant successes of the right wing in which the press
has been a sort of ignorant collaborator is appropriating the word religion.
What do we mean when we say that Americans are religious?
Those Catholics for instance who disagree with their church's teachings say
on abortion and on gay rights they're just a different kind of Catholic from
those who share the Pope's views. Just as Evangelical Baptists like Jimmy
Carter, who slapped at the fundamentalist Georgia State Superintendent of
Schools who wanted to remove the word evolution in the year 2004 from their
biology textbooks. He's as much a devout, religious person as is George W.
Bush. But there are different kinds of religion. So religious doesn't mean,
doesn't mean you have to follow the kind of religion which is being espoused
by our government today.
MOYERS: You write in praise of secularism. What exactly are you praising?
JACOBY: I'm praising a belief system which particularly in relation to
public affairs, but I have to say also in relation to personal conduct, says
we have an obligation to create a decent society, to behave decently to one
another, not because we're afraid that we're going to hell of we're hopeful
that we're going to heaven. But because this is what it means to be human.
This is what we owe each other as decent human beings. Not because we think
that some divinity is going to punish us if we're not good.
And I think the idea that the people have to have religion and that
governments have to have religion to be good, this is what I detest. And I
think that's the difference and I think, you know, someone once asked me,
"Well if you don't believe in God, what's to stop you from killing someone?"
No one had ever asked me that before.
I said, "Well, honestly, it never occurred to me to kill anyone." And not
because I think God is going to punish me or even because I think I'm going
to go to jail. I don't want to.
MOYERS: There are these people who say that we can't derive a moral standard
without reference to an absolute standard. And my question then is, "Where
does one draw, who is not a believer in an absolute or transcendental God,
where does one draw one's ethical imperatives?
JACOBY: Out of respect for common humanity. Out of respect for our own
humanity. Out of respect for what it means to have evolved into who we are
over the years. Out of, good heavens, the knowledge that the rights we want
for ourselves we have to grant to others.
Robert Ingersoll put it beautifully. Someone a reporter asked him that same
question in the 1870s. He said, "Secularism teaches us to be good here and
now. I know of nothing better than good. Secularism teaches us to be just
here and now. I know of nothing juster than just."
I feel that way. But justice on Earth doesn't require a thought of heaven.
And I also feel that we can only resolve our social conflicts, our political
conflicts by reference to ourselves.
MOYERS: And you mean by. in yourselves. You mean in the sanctioned system we
have set up to arrive at some resolution of our differences?
JACOBY: Yes.
MOYERS: The courts of politics.
JACOBY: Yes. And we will never do it by appealing to God because God is such
a different thing to so many different people.
MOYERS: You call the book FREETHINKERS. Tell our audience why that title?
JACOBY: Freethinker, a great word. It first appears at the end of the 17th
century. And what it meant was someone who opposed orthodox religion,
ecclesiastical hierarchy. Freethinkers. And it grew into a real social
movement in the next two centuries.
Freethinkers were not necessarily atheists or agnostics although they were
always called that. Isn't it funny that religious fanatics always all anyone
whose religion is different from theirs an atheist.
MOYERS: And who are your heroes of the free thinking movement?
JACOBY: Thomas Paine. Paine because he put in popular language religious
doubt. He also wasn't an atheist although he was always called that.
MOYERS: Theodore Roosevelt called Tom Paine a filthy little atheist.
JACOBY: He did. And yet Paine even says that he believes in God. What he
hates are church hierarchies. He hates the authority of ministers. He hates
the authority of priests.
He hates the authority of bishops. He certainly hated the authority of the
Pope. All established church hierarchies he hated. And that side of free
thought is constant whether they believe in God or not. And Baptists.
Speaking of Baptists, as you're a Baptist.
Another thing that would surprise at least a lot of the conservative wing of
Baptists today is that Baptists were, along with freethinkers, they united
to ratify the Constitution as it was and earlier to write Virginia's
Religious Freedom Act which is the first state to totally separate Church
and State. And they did that of course then because they were a minority
religion. And they deeply believed that religion was no business of
government at all.
They united with freethinkers who were more concerned that government not be
the business of religion. But here were compromise, here were flexible
people. They came to the same position which is Church and State should be
completely separate from different perspectives.
MOYERS: When you use the word, the phrase, "the separation of Church and
State," what do you think of?
JACOBY: I think of it as a great and mighty and nourishing river. That's
what I think of it as, a river divides just as a wall. But it divides in a
life giving way. And I think of it.
MOYERS: How so?
JACOBY: And I think of it that way because it nourishes, it has nourished
both religion and government. Certainly the plethora of religions we have,
the vitality of religious life is due to the fact that the government was
never able to interfere with religion. Not really of course there are many
exceptions but there was always this constitution saying no you can't do it.
And certainly government, our government, a secular government is the great
gift we gave to the world at a time when it didn't have it.
And seeing high government officials including the President and including
Justice Scalia, including a lot of other people just naming the two top
names very influential denying these life giving properties of separation of
church and state. Saying it's not even true, ignoring the fact that the
Constitution specifically grants authority to we the people. And pretending
that our government was founded as a Christian government.
Do you know - I don't mention this in the book - but in 1797 the Barbary
Pirates were attacking American ships. And so, you know, President John
Adams and signed in the Senate and the House unanimously signed a treaty
that was arranged, the Treaty of Tripoli. And they were of course Muslims at
the time in Tripoli. And one of the provisions of this treaty which was
published in American newspapers and again ratified with no comment in the
Senate, in the House and signed by President Adams, was that the United
States is in no way a Christian nation is the exact statement.
Was in no way founded as a Christian nation. Therefore we have nothing. I'm
paraphrasing now. We have nothing against they called the Muselmen then.
They were reassuring the Barbary states that America, which was not founded
as a Christian country, as the document states, was not going to interfere
with their religious practices.
And this provision occasioned basically no comment. If the separation of
church and state was not taken for granted even that early in the Republic
by both the religious and the nonreligious in America why imagine the fight
we would have over some agreement. You know let's say we signed a test ban
treaty today and it said something like, "We are not a Christian nation?"
MOYERS: This woman has a bee in her bonnet as we used to say down south.
What is it that motivated you to write this book?
JACOBY: I do have a bee in my bonnet as you so nicely put it. I actually,
This book started with another book. Several years ago I wrote a memoir
titled HALF-JEW and it was really about my father who pretended he wasn't a
Jew and was a Roman Catholic convert his whole life.
And it started me thinking I would speak in temples. And they would ask me
you know, "What are you now? Wanting to hear that I had returned to the
Judaism of my father's forbears, which he of course never knew either.
And I would say in a way unhappily because I knew these nice people who had
come to temples to listen to me would be disappointed. I would say I'm an
atheist. And there would be a gasp of surprise.
And someone said in one audience, "You mean you believe in nothing." And I
started thinking about that. I said, "Well no. I don't believe in nothing."
And I started thinking about that. Well, no. I don't believe in nothing.
There are a lot of things I believe in. I believe that our obligation is to
make life better because it's our obligation to each other as human beings.
Not in relation to eternal rewards and infernal punishments.
And then I started thinking, "This is what a lot of the founders of this
country believed." And why is the secular tradition in America which as
powerful as the religious tradition. Why is it so denigrated today? Why has
it been so lost at least in this period of our history? That really started
my writing this book.
MOYERS: The book is FREETHINKERS, A HISTORY OF AMERICAN SECULARISM, the
author is Susan Jacoby. Thank you very much for being with us on NOW.
JACOBY: Thank you. It's really been a pleasure.
The above interview came from:' NOW with Bill Moyers '
http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript320_full.html
http://www.pbs.org/now/society/jacoby.html
--
"The Raven keeps one eye on the future - yet - one eye on the past so his
journey is always straight..."
http://showcase.netins.net/web/motherearthfathersky/