%5 'Me' and religion

Blogcritics.org: Me and religion: "Me and religion
Published on April 04, 2003

Me and religion
Published on April 04, 2003
By Brian Flemming

"What is objectionable, what is dangerous, about extremists is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents."
Robert Kennedy, Pursuit of Justice, 1964

"The pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians...the ACLU, People For the American Way - all of them who have tried to secularize America - I point the finger in their face and say 'You helped this happen.'"
Jerry Falwell, Christian Broadcasting Network, September 13, 2001


I'm going to go out on a limb here: Much of the Christian community is very closed off from what the rest of us call "reality." I know, because I used to live in their world.

I grew up a fundamentalist, evangelical, born-again Christian. I was born again, oh, I don't know, seven or eight times maybe--there was a lot of peer pressure. I went to Christian schools until I was sixteen. Bible class five days a week, church on Sunday--and my best friend was a Seventh Day Adventist, so even Saturdays had some religion in them.

The religious schools I went to, especially Village Christian in Sun Valley, CA, where I spent 7th through 10th grades, were clearly designed for indoctrination. Village Christian (school mascot: The Crusader--I shit thou not) ranks its first priority as encouraging "students to develop a personal relationship with Christ." Want to know the second priority? "Each student will be able to describe a Biblically based relationship with Jesus Christ."

These are the first two priorities of a school. (Replace "Christ" with "Mohammed" and imagine what conservative Christians would have to say about that.)

And believe me, Village Christian more than practiced what it preached. "Encouraging" students, when you control where they are and what they hear and what they do every minute of the school day, amounts to a bit more than "encouragement." Every week was a trip through the same rundown: The secular world is evil (their word--not mine), the End Times are coming, you will go to Hell if you have not accepted Jesus as your Lord and Savior. Every week was capped off by Chapel on Friday, where we would assemble for an hour, listen to a guest speaker describe how his acceptance of Jesus rescued him, and then there would be the altar call, and everyone who hadn't accepted Jesus (or who had and just wanted to be born again again) would go up to the front and sob as the guest speaker or minister delivered a speech about their glorious rebirths while the rest of us watched them cry.

I was led to feel that Jews were doomed, and I felt guilty for not "witnessing" to my Jewish friends. I avoided them, not because I hated them or anything (there was never any outright anti-Semitism, except for that whole doomed-to-Hell bit), but because I couldn't handle the crushing guilt, and at the same time I couldn't bring myself to try to convert them.

One thing about the brand of Christianity I experienced, though--recovery from the indoctrination was not as arduous as it seems to be from other totalitarian organizations, like, say, North Korea, or that powerful religious cult whose name I am too frightened to utter in a signed post.

It was relatively easy to cast off the indoctrination. One day, at 15 years old, I just realized that the authority figures around me were full of shit, that the movement had nothing to do with morality or truth, and that I needed to get away. So I started violating the dress code, getting into trouble, quoting Ozzy Osbourne in my detention essays (when you were punished and sent to detention, you had to write an essay using Bible verses to explain why what you did was wrong)...and pretty soon my parents saw where things were headed and let me go to public school.

It was weird to experience the heathens in their natural habitat at first. The first time I heard a teacher say "damn" my heart skipped a beat. The first time I saw a student disagree with a teacher and engage in a debate I was floored. That never, ever happened in my prior authoritarian environment. I was scared out of my mind--just scared, I don't really know why. I think it felt like I was watching the fabric of society tear apart before my eyes...and I knew what was gonna happen after that.

But pretty soon I realized that the heathens weren't dangerous, that sex wasn't evil, that the Four Horsemen were not due any day now, and that if I saw Jesus descend from the sky it would probably be because I was on shrooms (oh, did I mention I got into drugs, and they helped my recovery a LOT?).


There are some things I had to learn on my own. Logic was an acquired skill. Oh yeah, and evolution I had to find by myself, because it had already been taught in prior grades at my public school. Did you know that Darwin was not influenced by Satan? It was totally news to me. And the glorious Holy Crusades? Turns out that there were actually human-rights violations involved and stuff.

I'm an atheist today, but I get along with Christians very well (my writing partner, Keythe, is a practicing Christian).

Today, the most residual stress I get from my experience stems from the special knowledge I have about exactly that brand of Christianity our President subscribes to.

I mean, he's not just some average United Methodist who goes to church on Easter and Christmas Eve. He's not merely "religious" or just a "churchgoer." At 40 years old he was "born again," and he did it to replace alcoholism. To get over alcoholism, he had to seclude himself with a group of other born-again Christians, study the Bible nonstop, and let the power, wonder-working power of Jesus Christ replace that demon that made him want to drink.

And he hasn't let go of that zeal. He doesn't just look to religion for comfort. It rules his life, as alcohol once did.

He believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible. Thank God most Americans, even many self-identified "Christians," don't read the Bible. The nation would be scared to death.

And it probably should be. This is the man leading our nation into a war against Islam--er, terrorism. I try not to think about what the Revelation to John says about what needs to happen in this particular region in order for the End Times to come and everything to turn out okay for the Christians.

Honestly, I try not to think about it too much because it scares me to my core. Just the process of simple deduction is frightening...

1. The Bible really does say what it says about that region's destiny. (I refuse to describe it--read your Bible.)

2. Born-again Christians really do yearn for the End Times--at Village Christian we talked about the signs of the End Times literally every week. (Most popular theme for a collage in art class? "The End Times Are Coming--Can't You Tell?", illustrated by pictures from secular magazines that show the disintegration of society.) If a born-again Christian ever tells you he doesn't yearn for the End Times, tell him I say he's fulla shit. At Village, we couldn't wait for the frickin' Rapture.

3. The most powerful man in the world, commanding the mightiest army history has ever known, is a born-again Christian.

4. He is active in the Middle East. Very active.

I'm sure there are reasons not to be worried. But I haven't found them yet. The last Crusades were about ridding the region of the wicked influence of Islam. Although Muslims have a keen sense of their history, our president is so tone deaf (he's never set foot on Middle East sand a single day in his 56 years) that he doesn't even know not to say the word "crusade." I have little doubt that in private he and his fellow-believing inner circle regard the Crusades the same way that Village Christian publicly does--as one of Christianity's finest achievements. (Any other view would be moral relativism.) You might doubt this. I can't.

That's the problem. When I imagine these men sitting together, planning the course of U.S. military action, I don't have to speculate about one of the strongest and most intimate influences on each one of them. The problem is, no mind reading needed here, I know exactly how they think.

============

Cancel eveything I wrote above. I've changed my mind, because I just read this in USA Today:

"Bush believes he was called by God to lead the nation at this time, says Commerce Secretary Don Evans, a close friend who talks with Bush every day."

Whew! That's a relief.
===========
Brian, have you seen this???

Army chaplain offers baptisms, baths

In this dry desert world near Najaf, where the Army V Corps combat support system sprawls across miles of scabrous dust, there's an oasis of sorts: a 500-gallon pool of pristine, cool water.

It belongs to Army chaplain Josh Llano of Houston, who sees the water shortage, which has kept thousands of filthy soldiers from bathing for weeks, as an opportunity.

''It's simple. They want water. I have it, as long as they agree to get baptized,'' he said.

And agree they do. Every day, soldiers take the plunge for the Lord and come up clean for the first time in weeks.

''They do appear physically and spiritually cleansed,'' Llano said.

First, though, the soldiers have to go to one of Llano's hour-and-a-half sermons in his dirt-floor tent. Then the baptism takes an hour of quoting from the Bible.

''Regardless of their motives,'' Llano said, ``I get the chance to take them closer to the Lord.''

(from Media Whores Online)

So, if you are a desperately thirsty Jewish soldier, do you have to accept Christ to get a juice box from this "man of God"?

==============



http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/323/7327/1450 <== REMOTE INTERCESSORY PRAYER< WIERD>>

--------------\\\\\\\
Many problems in human experience are the
result of false and inaccurate definitions
of humankind - premised in man-made religions
and humanistic philosophies. For better or
worse, the way we define 'human' determines
our view of self, others, relationships,
institutions, life, - and future.

"What is man...?" Only the Creator, who asks
the question and made us in His own image,
is qualified to accurately define us.

Man is earth's CHOICEMAKER Psalm 25:12 He
is, by nature and nature's G-d, a creature
of Choice - and of CRITERIA Psalm 119:30,173
His unique and definitive characteristic is,
and of Right ought to be, the foundation of
his environments, institutions, and respect-
ful relations to his fellow-man. Thus, he
is oriented to a FREEDOM whose roots are in
the Order of the universe.

Biblical principles are still today the
foundation under America and Western Civil-
ization. Let us proclaim it! Let's roll.
Behold! The SEASON of Generation-Choicemaker
JOEL 3:14 selah

The complete article is at:
httv://www.geocities.com/James-Baxter/

Semper Fidelis
Jim Baxter

"Envy thou not the oppressor and choose none
of his ways." Proverbs 3:31 KJV
Posted by Jim Baxter on February 26, 2003 at

--------------
CONTEMPORARY COMMENTS
"I should think that if there is one thing that man has
learned about himself it is that he is a creature of
choice." Richard M. Weaver

"Man is a being capable of subduing his emotions and
impulses; he can rationalize his behavior. He arranges
his wishes into a scale, he chooses; in short, he acts.
What distinguishes man from beasts is precisely that he
adjusts his behavior deliberately." Ludwig von Mises

"To make any sense of the idea of morality, it must be
presumed that the human being is responsible for his
actions and responsibility cannot be understood apart
from the presumption of freedom of choice."
John Chamberlain

"The advocate of liberty believes that it is complemen-
tary of the orderly laws of cause and effect, of
probability and of chance, of which man is not completely
informed. It is complementary of them because it rests in
part upon the faith that each individual is endowed by
his Creator with the power of individual choice."
Wendell J. Brown

"Our Founding Fathers believed that we live in an ordered
universe. They believed themselves to be a part of the
universal order of things. Stated another way, they
believed in God. They believed that every man must find
his own place in a world where a place has been made for
him. They sought independence for their nation but, more
importantly, they sought freedom for individuals to think
and act for themselves. They established a republic
dedicated to one purpose above all others - the preserva-
tion of individual liberty..." Ralph W. Husted

"We have the gift of an inner liberty so far-reaching
that we can choose either to accept or reject the God
who gave it to us, and it would seem to follow that the
Author of a liberty so radical wills that we should be
equally free in our relationships with other men.
Spiritual liberty logically demands conditions of outer
and social freedom for its completion." Edmund A. Opitz

"Above all I see an ability to choose the better from the
worse that has made possible life's progress."
Charles Lindbergh

"Freedom is the Right to Choose, the Right to create for
oneself the alternatives of Choice. Without the possibil-
ity of Choice, and the exercise of Choice, a man is not
a man but a member, an instrument, a thing."
Thomas Jefferson

THE QUESTION AND THE ANSWER
Q: "What is man that You are mindful of him, and the son
of man that You visit him." Psalm 8:4
A: "I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against
you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing
and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and
your descendants may live." Deuteronomy 30:19

Q: "Lord, what is man, that You take knowledge of him?
Or the son of man, that you are mindful of him?" Psalm
144:3
A: "And if it seems evil to you to serve the Lord, choose
for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the
gods which your fathers served that were on the other
side of the river, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose
land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will
serve the Lord." Joshua 24:15

Q: "What is man, that he could be pure? And he who is
born of a woman, that he could be righteous?" Job 15:14
A: "Who is the man that fears the Lord? Him shall He
teach in the way he chooses." Psalm 25:12

Q: "What is man, that You should magnify him, that You
should set Your heart on him?" Job 7:17
A: "Do not envy the oppressor and choose none of his
ways." Proverbs 3:31

Q: "What is man that You are mindful of him, or the son
of man that You take care of him?" Hebrews 2:6
A: "I have chosen the way of truth; your judgments I have
laid before me." Psalm 119:30 Let Your hand become my
help, for I have chosen Your precepts." Psalm 119:173

References:
Genesis 3:3,6 Deuteronomy 11:26-28; 30:19 Job 5:23
Isaiah 7:14-15; 13:12; 61:1 Amos 7:8 Joel 3:14
Ecclesiastes 3:1-8

Sir Isaac Newton
The greatest scientist in human history
a Bible-Believing Christian
an authority on the Bible's Book of Daniel
committed to individual value
and individual liberty

Daniel 9:25-26 Habakkuk 2:2-3 KJV selah

"What is man...?" Earth's Choicemaker JOEL 3:14 KJV
http://www.geocities.com/James-Baxter/
Posted by Jim Baxter on February 26, 200
=============
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

#8 Iraq Baptism and Secretary of Education Controversies - Christianity Today Magazine

Weblog: Updates on Iraq Baptism and Secretary of Education Controversies - Christianity Today Magazine: "Iraq Baptism and Secretary of Education Controversies
The Army investigates a chaplain for coercion and the Baptist Press admits 'factual and contextual errors' in an interview with Rod Paige.
Compiled by Todd Hertz | posted 04/14/2003

=======


Chief of Chaplains office investigates war chaplain's use of baptismal pool
A recent Miami Herald war dispatch about Army chaplain Josh Llano has led to an investigation by the U.S. Army Office of the Chief of Chaplains.

Embedded Herald staff writer Meg Laughlin wrote in an April 4 story that Llano has a 500-gallon baptismal font at the U.S. base "Camp Bushmaster" in Iraq that he uses to attract soldiers to his sermons. The story says that the "pool of pristine, cool water" is a rarity during a water shortage that has kept soldiers from bathing for weeks. Before they can get in, Laughlin reports, they have to listen to Llano's sermons and participate in a one-hour baptism.

"It's simple. They want water. I have it, as long as they agree to get baptized," the story quotes Llano as saying. "Regardless of their motives, I get the chance to take them closer to the Lord."

Since the story ran, several organizations have alleged that Llano is coercing baptisms and crossing church-state lines. The backlash led to an investigation by Army Chief of Chaplains Gaylord Gunhus. He told reporters last week that Llano was probably just joking with soldiers.

"I have confidence in my chaplains," Gunhus said. "It had nothing to do with keeping people from having water or anything at all. Speculation is, he was jesting with a bunch of folks."

Pentagon spokeswoman Martha Rudd said that there is plenty of water at "Camp Bushmaster." She added that Llano's pool is intentionally only for baptisms. "Neither the Army nor the Army Chief of Chaplains approves of religious coercion, but reports we've gotten indicate that's not what this was at all," Rudd told Scripps Howard. "We don't have any information at this time that the chaplain was coercing anyone. But we're still looking into it."

Religion News Service reported on Friday that the investigation is already over and the Chief of Chaplains office has determined that Llano is not coercing soldiers into baptism. Weblog could not find the story picked up in any online publication today, but look back later this week for links.

Baptist Press admits "factual and contextual errors" in Rod Paige interview
On Friday Weblog covered the political and media backlash on U.S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige,who was quoted in an April 7 Baptist Press article saying, "I would prefer to have a child in a school that has a strong appreciation for the values of the Christian community, where a child is taught to have a strong faith. Where a child is taught that, there is a source of strength greater than themselves."

The controversy centered not only on separation between church and state. During a press conference last Wednesday, the Department of Education released a partial transcript of the interview between Paige and Todd Starnes, director of university communications at Union University in Jackson, Tennessee, to show that the quote isn't exactly what Paige said.

Baptist Press posted the complete transcript of the interview late on Friday. An introductory paragraph reads: "The report accurately portrayed the substance of Dr. Paige's faith in God but contained factual and contextual errors in other respects. We regret the misrepresentations by the writer. Todd Starnes has been a trusted correspondent but no longer will be employed to write for Baptist Press."

In the transcript Starnes asks Paige, "Given the choice between private and Christian, or private and public universities … who do you think has the best deal?"

His answer in the Baptist Press transcript is the same as that released by the Department of Education. "That's a judgment, too, that would vary because each of them have real strong points and some of them have vulnerabilities," Paige told Starnes. "But you know, all things being equal, I'd prefer to have a child in a school where there's a strong appreciation for values, the kinds of values that I think are associated with the Christian communities, so that this child can be brought up in an environment that teaches them to have strong faith and to understand that there is a force greater than them personally."

Other articles on the story include:

Unrighteous indignation—Editorial, The Washington Times (April 12, 2003)

Religion in the public sphere—Editorial, International Herald Tribune (April 12, 2003)

Secretary of Education inappropriately accused—John Yeats, Baptist Press (April 11, 2003)

Copyright © 2003 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

=============
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010205/trillin

The Only King We Have Is Jesus

Calvin Trillin

(A newly unearthed gospel song credited to John Ashcroft)

As I told the Bob Jones students,
Seated white and black apart,
This nation is unique, not like the rest.
As I faced those godly youngsters,
I told them from the heart
Just why this land will always be the best:

The only king we have is Jesus.
And I feel blessed to bring that news.
The only king we have is Jesus.
I can't explain why we've got Jews.

So because our king is Jesus,
I'm often heard to say,
Our kids should pray to Him each day in class.
If some kids just stay silent,
That's perfectly OK.
But they'll all be given Jesus tests to pass.

The only king we have is Jesus.
That's the truth we all perceive.
The only king we have is Jesus
So Hindus may just have to leave.

Now Jesus hates abortion,
'Cause Jesus loves all life.
They call it choice; it's murder all the same.
The killers must be punished--
The doctor, man and wife.
We'll execute them all in Jesus' name.

The only king we have is Jesus.
It's Jesus who can keep us pure.
The only king we have is Jesus.
And He's Republican for sure.

The homosexual lifestyle
Could make our Jesus weep.
He loathed their jokes about which cheek to turn.
Yes, Jesus came to teach us
With whom we're supposed to sleep.
Ignore that and you'll go to Hell to burn.

(Final chorus sung in tongues:)
Tron smleck gha dreednus hoke b'loofnok
Frak fag narst fag madoondah greeb.
Tron smleck gha dreednus hoke b'loofnok
Dar popish, flarge dyur darky, hebe.

%7 Marketing "TERROR" +Ashcroft HeINoUS serpent traitor

Orcinus: "
Marketing terror

Marketing terror

If anyone wanted evidence that the "war on terror" is primarily a political marketing campaign -- in which war itself is mostly a device for garnering support -- they need look no farther than the startling non-response to domestic terrorism by the Bush administration.

This failure is particularly embodied by the Texas cyanide bomb plot -- largely because the refusal by John Ashcroft's Justice Department to give the story significant media play is problematic at best. Considering that Ashcroft leaps to the podium at nearly every turn in announcing the arrests of potential Al Qaeda-oriented terror suspects -- not to mention the readiness of the Department of Homeland Security to raise the "threat" level to Code Orange -- the silence in the Texas case is disturbing.

At the very least, the DoJ owes the public -- for ethical reasons alone -- an open assessment of the threat posed by the potential presence of cyanide bombs in the hands of domestic terrorists on American soil. If William Krar indeed manufactured and distributed more of these bombs, then shouldn't the public be both thoroughly alerted, informed and watchful? There are sound investigatory reasons not to reveal too much in the way of details, but utter public ignorance and indifference can be harmful as well, since it can in many regards make the terrorists' ability to act that much simpler. Isn't countering that, after all, the purpose of all these Code Orange alerts?

As I've argued consistently, domestic terrorists (especially the "lone wolf" type) pose at least as great a real threat to public safety as their international brethren -- if, for no other reason, than that they fully intend to "piggyback" on attacks like those of Sept. 11. (This is not to mention the facts that they can operate with great impunity, since they are likelier to go undetected, and they are equally motivated and inclined to act violently.) The anthrax terrorist, it should go without saying, was a clear-cut case of this. More to the point, white supremacists' core agenda has revolved directly around terrorism for more than a generation now, precisely because they believe the public must be convinced that democracy is a failure and will not keep them safe. The more chaos, the more terror, the more they believe they can shake up the system enough to seize power. That was, after all, the purpose of the Oklahoma City bombing.

It must be noted that the failure is not particularly one of law enforcement -- though even there, problems exist. But the FBI notably has not backed down, philosophically speaking, in its pursuit of domestic terrorists since Sept. 11, as the Tyler case demonstrated. Once Krar's materiel cache was uncovered, the agency committed the full phalanx of investigators and other resources to the case. And the reality is that, as the Washington Post reported earlier this year, agents themselves thoroughly understand that domestic terrorism needs to be a top priority in any "war on terrorism," and generally have acted accordingly.

What's becoming clearer is that this priority is not shared by top officials in the administration. Since Sept. 11, the FBI and other security agencies have massively shifted their terrorism focus to those components related to Al Qaeda and similar international terror groups. The Tyler case (like others) only was broken because of an accidental stroke of good fortune (namely, a traffic stop). Any philosophical priority given to domestic terrorism has been overwhelmed by the reality of funding and manpower devoted elsewhere.

Indeed, Frederick Clarkson reported in Salon last month that the DoJ took unusual steps to keep the trial of domestic terrorist Clayton Waagner -- who'd tried to "piggyback" himself on the anthrax terrorist by mailing death-threat letters stuffed with white powder to abortion clinics -- a low-profile case. Likewise, there have been multiple other cases of domestic terrorism in the past year that have failed to receive significant attention.

The fact that a pathology in the press is a primary factor here should not be understated. I've struggled hard and long against the problem of the mainstream media's blinders when it comes to the significance of the extremist right and its activities [and the fact that I now work independently suggests my solution to date]. As Chip Berlet points out in the Clarkson piece:

"Once somebody claims a religious motivation for an act of terrorism," he said, "most people, including reporters and editors, become unglued." If Waagner had been a self-identified Muslim terrorist instead of a Christian terrorist, Berlet observed, "he'd have been lynched by now." Indeed, while news reports invariably note that he is a self-described terrorist, and dutifully quote him as saying so, they also studiously avoid use of the word "Christian."

"The notion of Christian terrorists is a place people don't want to go," Glazier agreed. "And the notion of there being more than one Christian terrorist is a place where people also don't want to go."

Reporters and editors often "fear to offend," added Berlet. "But if it's fair to say if we can see the religious motivations in the Taliban, we ought to be able to see them in Waagner or Eric Rudolph." He notes that although Waagner and his associates in the Army of God "represent a tiny fraction of the wider Christian right, people don't know how to make sense of it." And reporters, he says, "walk away from it."

Though Waagner's crimes fiercely exploited the fears created by 9/11, Berlet says the press has tended to diminish the crimes. For example, he says, most of the stories use the term "anthrax hoax" to describe Waagner's crimes. But "just because a terrorist threat turns out to be a hoax does not mean that it has no effect."


Chip is exactly right, incidentally, about the "fear to offend." In fact, I couldn't begin to count the editors and reporters I've known who fear even running stories about white supremacists because they might offend various people and stir up "bad feelings" in the communities. "Let sleeping dogs lie" is a line I've heard all too often. The sad reality is that the disinclination to report on domestic terrorism has a long history that deepened in the 1990s.

Moreover, the post-2000 press corps has become slavishly corporate, and the post-9/11 ethos mandates a close adherence to the White House line. If the administration doesn't push the story, it's not worth reporting.

That in turn, however, points to the most significant aspect of the problem: The role of top government officials in downplaying the threat of domestic terrorism.

As Danny Levitas observes:

Had several Arab Americans with definitive links to known terrorist organizations been found in the President's home state with a sodium cyanide bomb, how long do you think it would have taken Attorney General John Ashcroft to call a national news conference and announce it? I'm not saying that I think anything was done to bury or lower the profile of this story intentionally. But I think it is quite reasonable to assume that had Arab American terrorists been involved (as opposed to white supremacists and militia activists) we would not have heard the end of this, and that would have been way back in April when the WMD and other massive explosives were first discovered.

Also, it is worth considering the nature of the materiel uncovered. Land mine components, suitcase bombs, binary explosives, more than 60 fully functional pipe bombs, and more. This is the biggest stockpile of the most dangerous stuff that I can EVER recall being found in connection with the white-supremacist and neo-Nazi movement. [Ed. note: more on that point here.]

%8 Found: WMD

Blogcritics.org: Found: WMD: "Flash! We finally discovered those WMD! The cache included:

...100 explosives, including 60 fully functional pipe bombs, as well as briefcase bombs, land mine components, deto

h! We finally discovered those WMD! The cache included:

...100 explosives, including 60 fully functional pipe bombs, as well as briefcase bombs, land mine components, detonation cord, trip wire, and binary explosives; machine guns and other illegal weapons; some 500,000 rounds of ammunition; a stockpile of chemical agents, including a large quantity of sodium cyanide and acids such as hydrochloric, nitric and acetic acids...

Oh, wait.

Forget it.

That stuff wasn't discovered in Iraq. It was discovered in Tyler, Texas, and it was possessed by right-wing extremists.

Bo-ring!

How much of a threat could chemical weapons be to U.S. residents if these weapons are being held by terrorists within the borders of the U.S.? Clearly, balsa-wood toy gliders in Iraq pose a much greater threat to you and me.

Please, can't we have another story about how we discovered WMD in Iraq, followed by the inevitable retraction? Those are ever so much fun, and the case for the invasion of Iraq, which has killed over 400 Americans and maimed 11,000, gets stronger and stronger with each phantom WMD discovery.

Anyway, the story we're not hearing all that much about is that cyanide-bomb plot, which involves real, actual terrorists and real, actual cyanide that could have killed real, actual American people.

Of course, the problem is that these terrorists aren't the kind that the casting agents at the Bush Administration and the media companies are looking for these days. Wrong type.

For one thing, they worship Jesus Christ, not a "demon-obsessed pedophile", as the former head of the Southern Baptist Convention described Mohammed.

And the President is a card-carrying member of the Jesus fan club, and so is Attorney General John "No King But Jesus" Ashcroft, so it may be difficult for them to draw attention to misguided Christian soldiers. And the press is similarly uneasy about the whole non-brown/non-Muslim threat.

David Neiwert, who won a National Press Club Award for his reporting on domestic terrorism, wishes the threat at home would get a little more attention:

...Frederick Clarkson reported in Salon last month that the DoJ took unusual steps to keep the trial of domestic terrorist Clayton Waagner -- who'd tried to "piggyback" himself on the anthrax terrorist by mailing death-threat letters stuffed with white powder to abortion clinics -- a low-profile case. Likewise, there have been multiple other cases of domestic terrorism in the past year that have failed to receive significant attention.

The fact that a pathology in the press is a primary factor here should not be understated. I've struggled hard and long against the problem of the mainstream media's blinders when it comes to the significance of the extremist right and its activities [and the fact that I now work independently suggests my solution to date]. As Chip Berlet points out in the Clarkson piece:

"Once somebody claims a religious motivation for an act of terrorism," he said, "most people, including reporters and editors, become unglued." If Waagner had been a self-identified Muslim terrorist instead of a Christian terrorist, Berlet observed, "he'd have been lynched by now." Indeed, while news reports invariably note that he is a self-described terrorist, and dutifully quote him as saying so, they also studiously avoid use of the word "Christian."


"The notion of Christian terrorists is a place people don't want to go," Glazier agreed. "And the notion of there being more than one Christian terrorist is a place where people also don't want to go."

Reporters and editors often "fear to offend," added Berlet. "But if it's fair to say if we can see the religious motivations in the Taliban, we ought to be able to see them in Waagner or Eric Rudolph." He notes that although Waagner and his associates in the Army of God "represent a tiny fraction of the wider Christian right, people don't know how to make sense of it." And reporters, he says, "walk away from it."

Though Waagner's crimes fiercely exploited the fears created by 9/11, Berlet says the press has tended to diminish the crimes. For example, he says, most of the stories use the term "anthrax hoax" to describe Waagner's crimes. But "just because a terrorist threat turns out to be a hoax does not mean that it has no effect."

Of course, Neiwert doesn't have as harsh a view of Ashcroft's Jesus freakiness as I do, possibly because he isn't a former Jesus freak like me.

Neiwert:

A number of observers writing about the Tyler case -- notably The Black Commentator and The Intelligence Squad -- have essentially concluded that "John Ashcroft isn't going to make a big deal out of nailing these guys" for one primary reason: "they are essentially a more extreme version of Ashcroft himself." That is: "The Bush men conceal the existence [of] terrorists, as if embarrassed by their own kind."

I can't argue entirely against this conclusion, except to note that the evidence in its favor is not wholly conclusive, and there is evidence contrary to it. If this were the case, would Ashcroft have prominently invoked the federal hate-crimes law in pursuing the notorious case of Darrell David Rice? Wouldn't he have pulled the plug on the FBI's reasonably sound pursuit of domestic terrorism, as described in that Post story?

More to the point, however, is that it is in essence an ad hominem argument that elides the core policy questions about this failure, and in a way lets Aschcroft and Co. off the hook: It explains away the failure to adequately confront domestic terrorism by arguing that Ashcroft and Bush are bad men of poor character. It may be emotionally satisfying to reach that conclusion, but it is not an argument.

It's more important, perhaps, to keep in mind the political dimensions that come into play here. There are, in fact, some fairly obvious political reasons why the Bush administration might not want to confront domestic terrorism as a significant component of the "war on terror".

A few weeks ago, Amy Goodman's Democracy Now! radio program tackled the Tyler case. She had on an impressive collection of guests, including Robert Riggs, the chief on-air reporter for the Dallas TV station, CBS-11, that originally broke the significant dimensions of the Tyler case; Brit Featherston [his name is misspelled on the transcript], Assistant U.S. Attorney in Texas; and Robert Jensen, a journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin.

Jensen had the most telling comment on the case:

I think the reason for that, if I were to speculate -- not being in the brain of John Ashcroft -- is that cases like this -- of domestic terrorism, especially when they involve white supremacist and conservative Christian groups, don't have any political value for an administration, especially this particular administration. Therefore, why -- if one were going to be crass and cynical, why Would they highlight this?

On the other hand, foreign terrorism and things connected to Arab, South Asian and Muslim groups, well those have value because they can be used to whip up support for military interventions, which this administration is very keen on.

Think, if you will, about the different kinds of terror at work here. The war against international terror plays out on a global stage, and as it's been waged so far by this administration, in remote and exotic locales. When Bush invokes the "war on terror," it revolves around images of Arab fanatics and desert combat. It's far removed from our daily realities -- except, of course, for the coffins coming home on military transports, images of which are forbidden to the press.

Politics and motivations aside, a very strong case can be made that the government and the media are ignoring the threat of domestic terrorism in a way that makes everyone in the United States less safe. Neiwert, who knows what he's talking about, makes this case very well. Much more (with many informative links) in his excellent piece here.

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2003_12_28_dneiwert_archive.html#107257032555368697

%7 ANTICHRISTIAN BRUTAL ATTACK ON ASHCROFT

: ANTICHRISTIAN BRUTAL ATTACK ON ASHCROFT FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL DEMONSTRATES HOW FAR DOWN THE PIT THE DEMOCRAT PARTY HAS FALLEN, AND HOW CLOSE AMERICA IS TO THE VALUES OF ANTICHRIST: "Title: ANTICHRISTIAN BRUTAL ATTACK ON ASHCROFT FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL DEMONSTRATES HOW FAR DOWN THE PIT THE DEMOCRAT PARTY HAS FALLEN, AND HOW CLOSE AMERICA IS TO THE VALUES OF ANTICHRIST


Title: ANTICHRISTIAN BRUTAL ATTACK ON ASHCROFT FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL DEMONSTRATES HOW FAR DOWN THE PIT THE DEMOCRAT PARTY HAS FALLEN, AND HOW CLOSE AMERICA IS TO THE VALUES OF ANTICHRIST

Subtitle: An attack on Ashcroft generally and on his speech at Bob Jones University in particular demonstrates that few of our Founding Fathers would be considered "fit" to serve a President today. In fact, Ashcroft's phrase "No King But Jesus" was the rallying cry of Colonists in the Revolutionary War!

The New World Order is coming! Are you ready? Once you understand what this New World Order really is, and how it is being gradually implemented, you will be able to see it progressing in your daily news!!

Learn how to protect yourself, your loved ones!

Stand by for insights so startling you will never look at the news the same way again.

YOU ARE NOW ON

THE CUTTING EDGE

NEWS BRIEF: "Ashcroft college talk eyed: AG hopeful spoke to Bob Jones crowd", by Libby Quaid, Associated Press, reprinted in The Sun Chronicle, Saturday, January 13, 2001, p. A-1.

"WASHINGTON -- John Ashcroft, President-elect Bush's nominee for attorney general, told a conservative South Carolina college two years ago that America was founded by deeply religious colonists and 'we have no king but Jesus'."

Liberal Democrats are jumping all over this statement in Ashcroft's speech to Bob Jones University students, believing they have found the "smoking gun" for which they were looking in their quest to deny Senate confirmation of Ashcroft for Attorney General. These Liberals are simply horrified by this statement, to the point of going into apoplexy. After all, in this America of the year 2001, who in their right mind would want anyone who believes in Jesus Christ as King as Attorney General, or any other position, for that matter? These Liberals are so positive that no one in this time period, or in any other period in American history for that matter, would want anyone for high office who expressed such strong love for Jesus Christ that they are acting exceedingly high and mighty. They are arrogantly screaming out these words almost as if they were curse words: "No king but Jesus".

There is only one major problem: This phrase is so deeply embedded in America's Revolutionary War against the King of England that it was actually a cry Colonial soldiers uttered when they were going into battle! [Marshall, Manuel, The Light and the Glory, p. 267] How many of you knew that little bit of history? How many of the nearly blind supporters of the Liberal Wing of the Democrat Party who have allowed themselves to be so blindly led by their Illuminist leaders like Jesse Jackson, knew that this rejection of the historic battle cry, "No King But Jesus" is really a rejection of the origins of this blessed land called America?

A REVIEW OF REVOLUTIONARY WAR AMERICA

Let us quickly review this historic American reliance upon Jesus Christ and the God of the Bible in Revolutionary War America. This information will be news to everyone who suffered through 12 years of today's Public School, but it is Truth, nevertheless.

True history will always recognize the fact that the American Revolutionary War was based upon a Fundamental Protestant Puritanism. For over 100 years before the first shot was fired in the Revolutionary War on Lexington Green on April 19, 1775, Protestant ministers were preaching and exhorting their members that they should resist a King and his Crown that ruled against Biblical teaching. An advisor to King Charles II warned him nearly a century before the beginning of the Revolutionary War that "the [American] ministers were preaching freedom" and urged him either to regulate them or replace them with Episcopal priests. [Marshall and Manuel, The Light and the Glory, p. 258]

The population of North America passed through God's revival now called the Great Awakening from the early 1740's through the late 1790's. As more American citizens received Jesus Christ as Savior, their knowledge of Bible doctrine, themes, history, and verses abounded, reaching to the bottom to the very top of the social ladder. Then, as the time for revolution drew near, Protestant ministers and theologians prepared the philosophical and Biblical foundation for the struggle to throw off England's slave's yoke.

Let us now examine some of the Founding Fathers who would be considered by this gang of no-nothing Liberal rabble-rousers of today to be "unfit" for high office in a presidential administration. The following Founding Fathers would be rejected as "unfit" because they uttered almost identical sentiments to those for which John Ashcroft is being pilloried.

Blogcritics.org: Found: WMD

Blogcritics.org: Found: WMD: "We finally discovered those WMD! The cache included:

...100 explosives, including 60 fully functional pipe bombs, as well as briefcase bombs, land mine components, detonation cord, trip wire, and binary explosives; machine guns and other illegal weapons; some 500,000 rounds of ammunition; a stockpile of chemical agents, including a large quantity of sodium cyanide and acids such as hydrochloric, nitric and acetic acids...

Oh, wait.

Forget it.

That stuff wasn't discovered in Iraq. It was discovered in Tyler, Texas, and it was possessed by right-wing extremists.

Bo-ring!

How much of a threat could chemical weapons be to U.S. residents if these weapons are being held by terrorists within the borders of the U.S.? Clearly, balsa-wood toy gliders in Iraq pose a much greater threat to you and me.

Please, can't we have another story about how we discovered WMD in Iraq, followed by the inevitable retraction? Those are ever so much fun, and the case for the invasion of Iraq, which has killed over 400 Americans and maimed 11,000, gets stronger and stronger with each phantom WMD discovery.

Anyway, the story we're not hearing all that much about is that cyanide-bomb plot, which involves real, actual terrorists and real, actual cyanide that could have killed real, actual American people.

Of course, the problem is that these terrorists aren't the kind that the casting agents at the Bush Administration and the media companies are looking for these days. Wrong type.

For one thing, they worship Jesus Christ, not a 'demon-obsessed pedophile', as the former head of the Southern Baptist Convention described Mohammed."

%5 Christian Bashing

Dean's World: Christian Bashing: "

'This is truly a judgement of God. Release the maiden.' At which point, King Richard I ...

Well, I'm not a Christian or even a believer, but it seems to me that if the liberals (tolerant of everthing except Christianity) bash you, then bash them right back.

Sir Walter Scott's 19th century classic novel about medieval England, "Ivanhoe" had this overwhelmingly passionate and heroic scene, in which the Rebecca, the Jewish damsel and daughter of Isaac, has been spirited off to the Templar Preceptory of Templestowe by Sir Brian de Bois-Guilbert, who has fallen in love with her -- a high crime in the measure of the Templars as priests and because of her religion.

Lucas Beaumanoir, Grand Master of the Templar order and also an intolerant and misanthropic Norman noble, chooses to punish Sir Brian by putting Rebecca on trial for sorcery, a trial in which she is quickly sentenced to death by burning.

Sir Brian passes a message to her at the end of the trial: "Demand a champion". She does so, throwing her glove to the floor as her gage of battle in her innocence and the Grand Master obliges by ordering a trial by combat. She has until the setting of the sun for an armed knight to appear and kill or be killed on her behalf. Beaumanoir rubs salt into the would by naming de Bois-Guilbert, the lovestruck Norman, to do combat on behalf of the Templar Order.

Near the end of the day, Sir Wilfred of Ivanhoe, still wounded from an earlier joust in the "Gentle and Joyous Passage of Arms at Ashby de la Zouche", rides into the tilt-field at Templestowe, and challenges Brian de Bois-Guilbert to mortal combat on behalf of Rebecca.

The Grand Marshal announces, "Let God defend the Right", and the armed knights, encased head to foot in chain mail, ride toward each other with their lances. Sir Brian de Bois-Guilbert collapses, either from a heart attack or stroke, and Beaumanoir, the Grand Master of the Order, with his eyes toward heaven, declares: "This is truly a judgement of God. Release the maiden." At which point, King Richard I rides onto the field at the head of his barons and other followers, and takes charge like the overwhelming deus ex machina that English history has thus treated him for so many centuries.

So that, more or less is my answer. If there truly is a God, let Him defend the Right. And if you feel strongly enough about it, given Him the assistance He needs. Each of you can be your own Sir Wilfred of Ivanhoe. Religion or any other philosophy cannot be saved from attack merely by caving in and whining about the unfairness of it all. That wouldn't have saved Rebecca from Beaumanoir's auto-da-fe and it won't save Christianity from the modern assaults mounted against it by enemies a lot more subtle than the late 12th century Norman barons of England and northern France.

And, damn, that was and is a great novel. It still makes me shudder to read some of the great passages!

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI

Posted by Arnold Harris on February 09, 2003 at 3:30 PM
====================

.../... Many different religious groups find things sinful. Drinking, drugs, premarital sex, sex for reasons outside of procreation, masturbation, swearing and much more are sinful to some religious group.

I am guilty of being a sinner to many different viewpoints - I assure you. If I announced that I enjoy masturbating every day and a group of Christians prayed for me I wouldn't think that they were bigots - I might think that they were wasting their time...but not bigots.


Bigotry: The state of mind of a bigot; obstinate and unreasoning attachment of one's own belief and opinions, with narrow-minded intolerance of beliefs opposed to them.

Intolerant: Not tolerating difference of opinion or sentiment, especially in religious matters; refusing to allow others the enjoyment of their opinions, rights, or worship; unjustly impatient of the opinion of those disagree with us; not tolerant; unforbearing; bigoted.

Praying for his soul, listening to him speak and politely applauding him when he was finished was very TOLERANT OF THOSE EVIL CHRISTIANS.
It is a belief and labeling someone a bigot for being a good Christian is really intolerant of you.

The only bigotry is on the part of those who demand we accept their prejudices and biases.

Isn't that EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE DOING???????

Your arguments are classic Christian bashing. Which, by the way, makes you an intolerant bigot.

I simply do not believe people like Pat Robertson, Fred Phelps, Jerry Falwell, Lou Sheldon are 'Christians.' They are bigots and scam artists. They prey upon the elderly and pander to the haters.

Where was it written that any of these men were in the prayer group? You labeled people other than these bigots...and you do it solely because they prayed for the soul of a gay man. You are ridiculous.
Posted by Rosemary Esmay on February 09, 2003 at 5:30 PM

--------------


Guy,
I can see your point about Robertson, Falwell, etc.. I have trouble considering them Christian myself, but I don't know that I would refer to them as "Christians" unless I was being deliberately sarcastic or disrespectful.

I don't see the point of referring to the group that Dean originally mentioned as "Christians" (in quotes), except that you don't approve of their behavior. I also don't see any justification in comparing that group with Falwell, et. al., unless you can establish a connection. I therefore question how you can imply that they aren't really Christian. As I pointed out before, there is a wide variety among different points of view about 'true' Christianity, and advocating one does not necessarily negate another. Somehow I suspect you just don't like this particular group, and are impugning the authenticity of their faith for petty reasons.

I don't see any mystery in (as you say) 'immediately take[ing] Gary's side' except that of random chance. There were some points in this thread I wanted to post on before I left for work this afternoon. It was possible that I would not decide to post until tonight (which I have done before) in order to have more time to spend on the topic. In fact I clocked in 2 minutes late. :) As for 'coyly' claiming anything: I still don't know what his "status" is. I suppose you mean his personal philsophy? I can now read his 7:29 post to see that he claims not to be a Christian, but that's the first hint I've had of his philosophy. I think in this case you are seeing some wierd concordance that really isn't there. The only reason I seem to be 'on his side' is that I think your remark "how un-Christian of you" is beneath you. If you don't understand why I think so, please re-read my first post.

As for your claim of a logical fallacy: um, no. :)

Your definition of atheism is not based on logic, but on semantics. Upon reflection, poor semantics. The root word of theis does not refer to religion, but God. For example, Monotheism refers not to "one religion" but "one God. Similarly so for Polytheism for "many Gods"; please also refer to the root of the French Dieu and the Spanish Dios. They derive from theis, which is... Damn. Hey, Dean & Rose, theis is a Greek root, isn't it?

In other words, "atheism" means "no God", or "not God", not "no religion." By contrast, religion is defined as:

1a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
1b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

The above is from dictionary.reference.com from the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th Edition.

I don't think folks will argue with the above. What I find interesting is the fourth definition: "A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion." Does this not describe most atheists perfectly?

I never really thought about this until a few years ago, when British author Terry Pratchett wrote Feet of Clay, which includes a clay Golem that gains self-awareness. One of his comments was that atheism is a belief, in that the atheist expresses his belief as a constant denial of God. Upon reflection I decided this makes sense. Nearly all professed atheists that I've met, heard of, or read their works, spend all of their time attacking the idea of God, or at least denying Him. Why? Why spend any time worrying about, or discussing an "outmoded belief system"? Simple. The belief system of the atheist based upon the statement "There is no God." In other words, their belief system is based on denying another belief system. The position that there is no God is, in itself, an act of faith since it cannot be falsified.

And (this is the really cool part):
-Since the claim that God does (or cannot) exist cannot be falsified, this makes the the claim non-scientific, since one cannot use the scientific method to verify a non-falsifiable claim.
-Since the claim that God does not exist is non-scientific, and cannot be falsified, it is not addressable strictly through reason.
-Since the claim that God does not exist is non-scientific, and cannot be proved (or disproved) using reason, then the atheist position is based upon faith, not reason, and is therefore itself a religion.

Whaddya think Dean? Rose? Nicely fisked? Heh.

Ara: I have a question for you. You say you that "religious fervor is creeping into the highest level of government policy making. And that is wrong."
Are you going to say that to the folks over in Israel who refer to the West Bank as "Greater Judea and Samaria?" Are you, in fact, going to question the legitimacy of the Israeli government, since (if memory serves) is has never been anything but the political expression of the Jewish State of Israel? Or does it only bother you when Christians are publicly explicit in their faith?

Come to think of it, since when is is "fervor" for an American politician to explicitly refer to the Christian faith?

Was it "fervor" when Jefferson referred to "Nature's God", or that "men ... are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights?"

Was it "fervor" when Lincoln said "that this
nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom?"

Or does it only bother you when Ashcroft says something?
Posted by Casey Tompkins on February 10, 200
===== === =
------\\\\\\\--- Cannibals 'R' Us! ------- merkins will
EAT every and ANY one/or/thing which impedes their
freaking myopic lust-bred objectives QED, comrade \\\
= === =======



This is developing into a very interesting and highly entertaining thread...

And I've held my tongue, I haven't even said yet what I, as a Presbyterian minister, think about homosexuality-- an issue which has bitterly divided my denomination in recent years.

Naw, I'm just gonna wait a while longer, and keep reading everyone else's posts... :-)


Posted by Paul Burgess on February 10, 2003
---------------------

js getting vortex-ed into this one:

-----====---

I'm not going to say I have the answer but here's some observations on the discussion above.

Arnold Harris: >>Well, I'm not a Christian or even a believer, but it seems to me that if the liberals (tolerant of everthing except Christianity) bash you, then bash them right back.
So now all liberals are anti-Christian? That's nice. And wrong.

Mike S. No religion is a religion? (paraphrase) C'mon - You're really Defense Secretary Rumsfeld aren't you? No evidence is evidence? This is how Republicans argue? Answer, no not always otherwise debate would be minimal.

>>You are religious bigots. Period. Don't waste my time with sophistry intended to prove you aren't. (Look up sophistry berore you reply.)
I knew this was Gary, before I read who wrote it.

Later, Gary: When religious fervor works its way into the highest levels of government policy making, then that is wrong. Well, no, actually, it's not. It's not even unConstitutional. It MAY turn out to be a Bad Thing, or it may NOT. There are good laws and bad laws, and religion has not much to do with it one way or another.

It IS wrong. Do you want a government that fervently acts on faith that a god, any god, has the answer and not work toward answers based in reality?

Ara: I don't care if Christians pray openly for gay people, but when they do it at a political convention, the implication is, well, unmistakable
my view exactly. No more of the typo cracks though - see how it enables people to disregard what you say.

Rosemary: Many different religious groups find things sinful. Drinking, drugs, premarital sex, sex for reasons outside of procreation, masturbation, swearing and much more are sinful to some religious group.

Which would seem to point to the malliability nature of "faith."

Then there are those Christians who say, "I'm not judging you, but I feel sorry for you" as if the two weren't the same thing.
PS type in B-L-O-G-P-S-O-T.com and see if you agree with that. It's religion, too.

Casey TompkinsAra: I have a question for you. You say you that "religious fervor is creeping into the highest level of government policy making. And that is wrong."
Are you going to say that to the folks over in Israel who refer to the West Bank as "Greater Judea and Samaria?" Are you, in fact, going to question the legitimacy of the Israeli government, since (if memory serves) is has never been anything but the political expression of the Jewish State of Israel? Or does it only bother you when Christians are publicly explicit in their faith?

Casey, I don't think we want to be Israel do we? I mean, they just wallow in peace and barely cause a ripple of disension in the world. [again a pre-emptive strike against charges of Anti-semitism - they have EVERY right to defend themselves].

Dean:They would have done the same thing if he were a striaght man who was on record as currently having a mistress. Or living with a woman outside of marriage.
You would like to think so, but it's never happened. If so, I will gladly send in a list of Rs and Ds who've had mistresses and they can do so at the next RNC.

Deonna:I will also say this.... the day that America took God out of everything, from schools to even trying to take God off of our currency, and out of the pledge of alleigance, we have been in HELL! Not the hell talked about in the Bible, but the confusion, wars, division among people... ect.
Prove it. Or to put it another way: -- There were no wars, no disagreemnts in America before that? Or is it that there is greater freedom and more opportunity today for people who have disagreements to speak up. Enjoyed the rest of your post.

By the logic that atheism is a religion, then it must also be an article of faith that the sun will come up every morning and set every evening. By the same logic, homosexuality is a religion because gays are only "acting" on faith that they are attracted to the same sex.

Lastly, if religion is all about faith, then why spend so much time defending it? People who disagree that a god exists could still be right or they could be wrong. Right? Logically speaking. Of course, logic and faith are two incompatible ideas so it is interesting but ultimately fruitless to try and make religion "logical."
Posted by dimn on February 10, 2003 at
-----------------

This is a great discussion - but let me throw a few wrenches into the works.

I'm an atheist, but unlike most, I didn't abandon religion: I was raised as an atheist. This has given me a rare perspective. I sought out religion when I was young because it was advertised to answer big questions and offer deep insights into life. But when I read about actual beliefs, I couldn't understand why anyone would accept them. For example, the Christian doctrines of the virgin birth, of Jesus' miracles, of Jesus ascending into heaven - these made no more sense to me than any other superstition. Likewise for virtually all other major religions.

So here's the first wrench: I sincerely invite others here to offer me a compelling reason to believe that any conventional religious doctrine is true. Don't feel you have to nail down a complete argument in a post; just point me in the direction of a book or source that you think is convincing. (Please don't suggest the Bible. I've read it.) What convinced you that God is real? I understand that faith is a personal experience, but I don't understand how it is begun.

Second wrench: I think religion is essentially un-democratic. The problem with combining religion and politics is that it produces leaders who rely on a belief in the supernatural to inform their decisions. And the supernatural, by definition, can't be supported with available evidence. So when a politician says his actions stem from his faith in God, there is no evidence to evaluate - no way for others to argue on the merits of the case. For example, if John Ashcroft says his antiabortion stand is based on his religious beliefs, there is no way for me to respond unless I know enough about his religion to argue - and I shouldn't have to know that to participate in a democracy. (An example of this kind of argument is Deonna Moore's post. I emphatically disagree with her, but since she bases her view on her religion, how can I argue with her?)

Third wrench: I don't believe leaders who claim they can separate their religious convictions from their public duties, as John Ashcroft and several others state. If their faith is the truest thing they know, then why in the world wouldn't they want to guide the public towards that truth? I sure would. I can only conclude that they do indeed let religion guide their decisions and are trying to hide that fact, or they don't really believe as strongly in their faith as they claim. I think congress is filled with both types, the first are typically republicans, while the latter are typically democrats. What I'd like to see is a politician stand up and say he's an atheist and doesn't let religion influence his decisions. The fact that this would be political suicide speaks volumes about the reality of the separation of church and state in our democracy.

Finally, a point about what atheism is or isn't. All this talk about atheism being a religion or a belief based on faith is silly. Atheism a non-belief, and we all have an infinite number of non-beliefs. Do you believe I have a life-size purple elephant in my office? No? That's a non-belief of yours, something you take on faith. If we're discussing god, I'm an atheist. If we're discussing the Wicca faith, I'm an awiccian - I don't believe witches exist. If we're discussing Santa Claus, I'm an aclausian - I don't believe Santa Claus exists. Religious people are so obsessed with God they think everyone else is too, and that atheists go around constantly thinking "not-God" thoughts. But because atheists don't believe in God, most of them don't think about him much at all. That's certainly been my experience. My non-belief in God doesn't guide my life any more than your non-belief in my purple elephant guides your life. It's only when religious people raise the issue of God that it becomes an issue in the first place.
Posted by Garrett Soden on February 11, 2003 at 12:48 AM


Well now, lets see what the Good Book has to say about public prayer:

From the KJV, Matthew Chapter 6:

5: And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

6: But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

-------------------
I think those praying for the Rep. at the Convention were of the Verse 5 variety above...as has been pointed out by others already, many of the other politicians on that stand were Adulterers, or worse!

They were praying for the PR, let's get real, and they have their reward.


I'm guessing that the Rep. in question was Jim Kolbe, whose District I live in, as he's about the only gay Republican I can think of (and it's a mostly Dem. District...when he got forcibly outed, his strangle-hold on the seat got tighter, as he gets many cross-over votes from otherwise left-leaning Dems...Tucson has one of the highest percentages of gay population outside of SF in the US).

If the person in question was Kolbe, I'd say his soul would be in peril more for conducting a sham of a marriage for years, and then ripping his family appart when outed, than it is for being gay.
Posted by David Mercer on February 11, 2003 at 12:55 A

====================



Dean, I agree with you about many VERY good things about America that wouldn't have happened without very sincere Christians acting from within their faith. And I agree with you about those who think that being religious and holding high public office is violating seperation of Church and State.

I just doubt the motives of those who prayed on TV to get seen being such good Christians.

And they weren't in a Church, they were at a political convention...and as one who's mother always says she'll "pray for me", because she sees things I do as "sinning" that I do not, I don't think the Rep. in question appreciated the manner they went about praying "for his soul".

I still maintain that they did it to be seen doing it.

I have NOTHING but the utmost respect for Christians I have and continue to meet who live up to even a fraction of the ideals that Christ himself laid out in the New Testament, but I also have nothing but contempt for hate mongering followers of Paul who call themselves Christians.

(Jesus never said women should be silent in submission to their men, that was Paul. Nearly all of the tendencies of Christians and their Churches that have lead to the contempt for them you deride springs from the teachings of Paul.
Don't believe me? Re-read your New Testament).

It's the genuine kindness and non-judgemental attitude of a number of true Christians I've met when I was at the low points of my life that made me re-evaluate the kind of bigotry you deride that existed in myself, and also caused me to take a closer look at who the hate-mongers in the Churchs liked to quote that opened my eyes about Paul.

Christians I have respect for and would gladly see in any high office..."Paulians" (for lack of a better word) I fear, for they would see a Panopticon Nanny State the likes of which John Ashcroft is trying to implement, and WOULD like to see a Theocracy here in the US.

So I suppose I am in near total agreement with you Dean, anti-Christian bigotry is bad, you need a discerning eye to tell them apart.

Just take a look at who they like to quote, Jesus or Paul, helps immeasurably.
Posted by David Mercer on February 11, 2003
//////////////////////

Did Dean bend the truth when he talked about 'Christian bashing' at the 2000 GOP convention? It appears so:

US News&World Report

AFA

GOP columnist

ABC News

CNN

Uh oh. Doesn't look like Dean was being completely truthful.
Posted by Guy Cabot on February 11, 2003
///////////////////////

#6 Christian Intolerance [TMF blog spurt]

Dean's World: Christian Bashing: "Christian Bashing ::.

February 09, 2003

Christian Bashing

I remember watching the political conventions in 2000. I always watch as much of both the Democratic and Republican conventions as I can. At the Republican convention that year, an openly gay congressman got up to address the delegates. A smallish group of Christian Evangelicals who were also delegates to the convention stood together and bowed their heads to pray for him, because they considered his homosexuality sinful.

Commentators in the media virtually had conniptions at the show of 'intolerance.' All I could do was roll my eyes. Man, can you think of anything more awful than praying for someone? Gosh, what Nazis. Next it's concentration camps for sure!

I am often stunned at the sheer and unapologetic ferocity of verbal abuse spewn by many people at evangelical Christians. Even common terms like 'religious right' are loaded with the assumption that, somehow, if you're a devoted Christian and are even vaguely right-of-center in your politics, there's something sinister about you. But if someone verbalized that kind of withering criticism at a Jew, or a Buddhist, or a Hindu, or a Muslim, most people would be shocked and appalled.

I remember telling a friend of mine named Jeff that although I was baptized, I had long ago come to the conclusion that the Bible is not the inerrant Word of God, that it is a work written by men and often contradictes itself. I said, 'I suppose that makes me an apostate.' Jeff seemed to find that upsetting, although we didn't talk about it much.

A day or two later, I was with my friend Ed, and as we walked up to my car I noticed a note under the windshield wiper. It was from Jeff. It said, 'Dude, you are not an apostate. God loves you. Jeff.' I smiled, and showed it to Ed. Ed freaked out, and thought there was something sinister about the note. I was bemused. What on Earth is so awful about that? He's showing concern for me. Okay, "9.9% of Christians don't even let it get to the point where you have to say that.

So it was with some interest that I read an essay called Everybody Hates Us by evangelical minister Michael Spencer. I frankly think he's too tough on his faith. I've encountered the sort of Christian he talks about, but it's been my experience that they are a distinct minority. I also think he may miss the influence of fairly shady characters who work as televangelists, who may influence perceptions more than everyday Christians do.

Still, it is an interesting essay, and perhaps some Christians could learn from its message. At the same time, though, I like to go out of my way to remind people: Bigotry really is bigotry, and prejudice is prejudice. That goes for Christians as well as anyone else.

And I encourage people to remember: when a Christian wants to tell you about his faith, he's trying to do something nice for you. Just remember that, and keep it in mind, even if you should decide you're not interested. It's only part of their faith, and no one said you had to listen, or convert.
--------------
Discuss This Article!



The most effective evangelism, religious or otherwise, comes from the heart, not the head. As the old saying goes "A man, convinced against his will, is a man of the same opinion still."

Thanks for the great link to a wonderful article.
Posted by Tobacco Road Fogey on February 09, 2003 at 4:16 AM


I am an athiest. But the Christian Church has been a great comfort to my mama since my father died, and I sometimes envy her faith. She sings in the choir, goes on field trips with the "Ageless Wonders" and keeps a busy social schedule through the church.

There's not a Got-Damned thing wrong with that.
Posted by Acidman on February 09, 2003 at 7:23 AM


One of the entertaining aspects of being a liberal Protestant is that, in my experience, many anti-Christian bigots aren't even aware that liberal Protestantism exists. Thus, I am invisible on their radar screen. I've had many an entertaining hour, conversing with people who simply cannot wrap their minds around the fact that I'm a Christian but I'm not a fundamentalist. :-)

Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got to run through my sermon one last time, before the 9:00 service at St. John's next door.
Posted by Paul Burgess on February 09, 2003 at 9:13 AM


Oops! That's 9:00 Central time, Dean's blog runs on Eastern time...
Posted by Paul Burgess on February 09, 2003 at 9:16 AM
-----------/oops, i ex-WAS amused, methinks he said
"DEMs blogs run on EST, Hmmpht, much funnier/---


I'm reminded of the old saw about the son who killed his parents and then begged the court's mercy because he was an orphan.

The initiating act in your story was that a bunch of bigots decided to make a mockery of their 'religion' by 'praying' for someone who is gay.

We're all sinners, Dean. Yet, these bigots decided somehow this fact didn't warrant their prayers--only the gay guy does. Did they huddle in prayer for the soul of John McCain, who has been known, on numerous occasions, to covet his neighbor's wife. Did they quickly convene a 'prayer' group for virtually every GOP speaker who bore false witness? Did Laura Bush get prayers for violating the "shalt not kill" provisions?

Nope. Only the gay guy gets the treatment.

And the Good Book also admonishes those who would use prayer and piety for ostentacious displays.

Pointing out hypocrisy isn't bigotry, Dean.
Posted by Guy Cabot on February 09, 2003 at 11:04 AM
--------------------
//////////////


Dean:

I don't care if Christians pray openly for gay people, but when they do it at a political convention, the implication is, well, unmistakable: religious fervor is creeping into the highest level of government policy making.

And that is wrong.

When John Ashcroft says "we" have no King but Jesus, that doesn't sit well with me for a variety of reasons, most of which I won't go into right now.

I understand that the evangelists' mandate is to preach the Gospel to everyone. I understand that Ascroft's religion is important to him.

Aschcroft believes (as do all truly born again Christians) that unless you receive Jesus as your savior, you will be cast into the pits of Hell for eternity.

If you believe it, that's fine for you. I happen to find it objectionable, but then again I'm not a Christian.

So, fine for those who buy it.

What's most definitely not fine is when intense adherence to this kind of religious fervor worms its way into the highest levels of government and policy is set according to it.

Me, going to hell, if I don't accept Jesus? What's next? Me going to Hell if I don't vote Republican?
Posted by Ara Rubyan on February 09, 2003 at 12:05 PM

////////////
this is good seeming.. but go there, i'll changing my channel, now
http://www.deanesmay.com/archives/000773.html

%8 More Perspective On The Terrorists

Dean's World: For More Perspective On The Terrorists (Joe Gandelman): "Perspective On The Terrorists (Joe Gandelman) ::.

July 03, 2004

For More Perspective On The Terrorists (Joe Gandelman)

The San Diego Union-Tribune's Insight Editor Robert Caldwell offered one of his as-usual insightful and blunt analysis last Sunday on the terrorism situation. You can read it here. And it's more important now in light of the new Iraqi government being in place...plus the sad news about the Marine. These may seem like (and are) acts of madness...but there is a grand plan.


Caldwell writes pap representing the usual inside-the-box thinking. The terrorists, are evil, they must be overcome, etc, et al, ad nauseum.

The terrorists of Iraq and Saudi Arabia are winning this struggle because they have the cooperation of large segments of the societies in which they live, and because you have not given them sufficient inducement to stop terrorizing people. The tactics they are using are smart, and they are probably the ones I would recommend if I were one of their tacticians. Because at this rate, they will in fact beat us and take over Iraq and Saudi Arabia in the end.

I think there is only one way to overcome terrorism. And that is with your own terrorism. Which can take one of two forms.

1) One form could be massive terrorism randomly applied to a large population of the enemy. This would be essentially a reprisal form of terrorism, sort of similar to what the nazis did to the Czech village of Lidice in 1942, after two specially trained Czech resisters, parachuted into the country by the British secret services, assassinated Reinhard Heydrich, the nazi protector of Bohemia and head of the SS-Sicherheitsdienst. The nazi response was to level Lidice and kill its entire male population.

Was that brutal? As brutal as the Germans could think up. Did it work? You bet your ass it did. At least in Czechoslovakia. The Germans had little trouble with them for the remainder of the war.

2) The second form of terrorism that could be applied is to identify the key terrorist leaders, then systematically identify, locate and kill all their relatives. Beginning with their first-born male children. The more innocent the victims are, and the more thoroughly we apply this form of counter terrorism, the less trouble we will ever have again with potential enemies.

Either method could be practiced in a manner that is simultaneously ruthless, implacable, and merciless. Remember that the object of all this is to render any present or future enemy fearful of taking part in any action against this country, its soldiers and civilians, and its national interests. If carried out with the right degree of viciousness, the Arabs themselves will be bringing in the terrorist leaders whom we seek, or will be bringing in their body parts for laboratory-level genetically foolproof identification.

If any of you are squeamish about even discussing such tactics, just remember that when and if these enemies ever get the power, that is exactly what they will do to you. And according to the iron laws of logic, you will deserve it for not having done it to them first.

You all want a nicer and more peaceful world to live in? Excellent. But first you must pacify that world. The easy way or the hard way.

Anyway, if you can't stand the idea of fighting your enemies in ways that ensure victory, then don't get involved in wars against ruthless people who have no such qualms.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Posted by Arnold Harris on July 03, 2004 at 6:02 PM

Hailliburton Making Over $10 billion From War <$80B ?>

Hailliburton Making Over $10 billion From War

In 2003, Vice President Cheney asserted, "Since I left Halliburton to become George W. Bush's vice president, I've severed all my ties with the company, gotten rid of all my financial interest. I have no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind and haven't had, now, for over three years."

That wasn't true in 2003, and it's not true now. In 2003, Cheney still received deferred compensation from the contracting behemoth and possessed more than 433,000 stock options, according to American Progress Report . Those options were worth $241,498 a year ago; they are now worth more than $8 million.

With Cheney in office, Halliburton has received more than $10 billion for work in Iraq and received one of the first no-bid contracts for work in the Gulf Coast.

Shouldn't we be talking about this?

HENRY E. LOWE

#7 CIA leak investigation falsehoods

Top CIA leak investigation falsehoods: "Top CIA leak investigation falsehoods

J.K.

As U.S. attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald's two-year investigation into the CIA leak case reportedly draws to a close, the long-standing debate over the origins of the scandal, the merits of the federal investigation, and the legal authority of the prosecutor has intensified greatly. At issue is the disclosure to the press of the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame, which first appeared in syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak's July 14, 2003, column . Bush administration officials allegedly leaked her identity in order to discredit her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, a vocal critic of the White House's decision to go to war with Iraq.

In this rhetorical environment characterized by limited information and boundless speculation, those defending the officials at the center of Fitzgerald's probe have advanced numerous falsehoods and distortions. As Media Matters for America documents below, the media have not only failed to challenge many of these claims, but also repeated them.

Falsehood: It is legally significant whether the leakers disclosed Plame's name in their conversations with reporters

Shortly after Newsweek published an email by Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper to Time Washington bureau chief Mike Duffy saying that, according to White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove, "Wilson's wife" worked at the CIA, Rove's lawyer responded by noting that his client had not stated her actual name. Several news outlets went on to report Rove's response as if his reported omission of Plame's name was relevant to whether he violated the law. Simultaneously, commentators such as former presidential adviser David Gergen and Washington Times chief political correspondent Donald Lambro , as well as the Republican National Committee (RNC), began to advance the argument that because Rove didn't specifically name her, he did not reveal her identity.

But whether leakers identified Plame as "Valerie Plame," "Valerie Wilson," or "Wilson's wife" is irrelevant, both as a practical matter and likely as a legal matter. Practically speaking, a quick Google search of Joseph Wilson at the time would have produced Plame's actual name. As such, administration defenders have declared that whether her name was mentioned to reporters likely has no bearing on whether there was a violation of the law. Despite having previously implied that there is a meaningful distinction between disclosing her name and her identity before, Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, later conceded that drawing such a line was "too legalistic." Similarly, Victoria Toensing, the Republican lawyer who helped draft the potentially applicable 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA), agreed that the use of her name is "not an important part of whether this is a crime or not."

Nonetheless, numerous media figures recently revived this claim in the wake of New York Times reporter Judith Miller's revelation that the source who told her that Plame worked at the CIA, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, also never disclosed her actual name.

Falsehood: Wilson said that Cheney sent him to Niger

An RNC talking points memo made public on July 12 accused Wilson of falsely claiming "that it was Vice President Cheney who sent him to Niger." The allegation that Wilson had lied about the genesis of his trip was soon repeated by RNC chairman Ken Mehlman, who argued that this fact justified the purported leaking of Plame's identity to the press and that the White House had simply been attempting to set the record straight.

New York Times columnist David Brooks made this argument at least twice ( here and here ). And a string of journalists and commentators -- including CNN's Dana Bash , The Washington Post 's Mike Allen , Newsweek 's Jon Meacham , and U.S. News and World Report 's Michael Barone -- parroted the allegation during news reports and media appearances in the following weeks. NBC chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell recently repeated the claim as a guest on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews .

But Wilson never said that Cheney sent him to Niger. To support this accusation, the RNC had misrepresented his July 6, 2003, op-ed in The New York Times and distorted a remark he made in an August 3, 2003, interview on CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer . Contrary to their allegation, Wilson clearly stated in the op-ed that "agency officials" had requested he travel to Niger. Further, in the CNN appearance, he stated it was "absolutely true" that Cheney was unaware he went on the trip.

Falsehood: Plame suggested Wilson for the trip to Niger

In their ongoing attempts to justify the alleged leaks, Mehlman and other supporters claimed that the White House had a legitimate interest in setting the record straight by disclosing that Plame, not Cheney, was actually responsible for Wilson being sent to Niger. In a January 2005 Washington Post op-ed, attorneys Victoria Toensing -- a friend of Novak -- and Bruce W. Sanford framed the leak in such a light and suggested that Novak outed Plame because he wanted to "expose wrongdoing" -- i.e., the alleged nepotism that led to Wilson's assignment. Numerous reporters subsequently repeated that Plame suggested Wilson for the trip, including The Washington Post 's Jim VandeHei , MSNBC host Chris Matthews , and, most recently, MSNBC correspondent David Shuster .

But what these reporters stated as fact is actually in dispute. Unnamed intelligence officials have been quoted in the media claiming that the CIA -- not Plame -- selected Wilson for the mission. Also, CIA officials have disputed the accuracy of a State Department intelligence memo that reportedly indicates that Plame "suggested" Wilson's name for the trip.

Novak himself claimed that the Senate Intelligence Committee, in its 2004 " Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq," concluded that Plame suggested the trip. In fact, the committee did not officially conclude that she had been responsible for Wilson's assignment.

Falsehood: Wilson was not qualified to investigate the Niger claims

In conjunction with the claim that nepotism led to the selection of Wilson for the trip to Niger, several conservative media figures have attempted to cast the former ambassador as unqualified to investigate the claims that Iraq attempted to purchase uranium yellowcake form the African country. Toensing has repeatedly claimed that he lacked "any experience in WMD" and "any kind of senior experience in that country." National Review Washington editor Kate O'Beirne has described Wilson as "no expert in weapons of mass destruction."

But Wilson possessed extensive diplomatic experience, had specialized in Africa during most of his career, and had taken a similar trip to Niger in 1999 to investigate possible purchases by Iran.

Falsehood: Plame's CIA employment was widely known

In an apparent effort to undermine the possibility that the alleged White House leakers committed a crime, both The Washington Times editorial page and right-wing radio host Rush Limbaugh have argued that Plame's identity was known by many in Washington, D.C., at the time Novak published his column outing her as "an agency operative." As support for this argument, the Times claimed that "numerous neighbors were aware that she worked for the agency."

In fact, none of the neighbors cited in The Washington Times ' own news reports or in other reports said that they knew before reading the Novak column that Plame worked at the CIA. Her acquaintances told reporters that they believed she worked as a private "consultant."

Falsehood: Fitzgerald must prove that Plame's covert status was leaked

Recent reports from a number of news outlets have attributed legal significance to whether Rove and Libby leaked Plame's covert status to the press. But as with the issue of whether Plame's actual name was leaked, whether the officials communicated her status as a covert operative is likely not relevant to the question of whether their actions violated federal law. According to news reports, a 2003 State Department memo -- which was likely read by top administration officials during a trip to Africa -- designated as "S" for "secret" a section mentioning Plame, even though it did not mention her covert status. Therefore, the information allegedly disclosed by Rove and Libby -- that she worked at the CIA -- was apparently classified.

Falsehood: Fitzgerald's investigation was originally limited to possible violation of 1982 law

Conservative commentators have reacted to reports that Fitzgerald is looking at a variety of legal approaches to the CIA leak investigation by characterizing him as a "runaway prosecutor" or a Captain Ahab "chasing a white whale." The argument put forth by Toensing, as well as columnists Richard Cohen and George F. Will is that, in pursuing such charges, the special prosecutor is overstepping his mandate. The claim underlying this argument is that the Department of Justice (DOJ) originally granted him authority to investigate whether the alleged leakers had violated the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA).

But the DOJ's delegation of Fitzgerald as special prosecutor gave him broad authority to investigate the leaks; it made no mention of the IIPA, nor did it name any other specific statute. The DOJ official who appointed Fitzgerald as special prosecutor, then-deputy attorney general James Comey, stated in a December 30, 2003, press conference that "Mr. Fitzgerald alone will decide ... what prosecutive [sic] decisions to make" and that "he can pursue it [the leak investigation] wherever he wants to pursue it." In a February 6, 2004, letter to Fitzgerald, Comey further clarified that his delegation included the "authority to investigate and prosecute violations of any federal crime laws related to the underlying alleged unauthorized disclosure, as well as federal crimes committed in the course of, and with intent to interfere with, your investigation, such as perjury, obstruction of justice, destruction of evidence, and intimidation of witnesses."

Despite the lack of evidence that the DOJ limited the scope of Fitzgerald's investigation in any way, two recent New York Times articles (here and here) reported that he was appointed to investigate "whether government officials had violated a 1982 law that makes it a crime in some circumstances to disclose the identity of an undercover agent."

Similar to this baseless claim is Weekly Standard editor William Kristol's recent assertion that the CIA referred the case to the DOJ specifically as a possible violation of the IIPA. But the initial news reports on the referral indicate that the CIA more generally requested that the DOJ "investigate allegations that the White House broke federal laws by revealing the identity of one of its undercover employees." Moreover, a "former government official" quoted in Newsweek stated that the CIA's referral never even mentioned the IIPA.

Falsehood: Leak investigation is the result of partisan motivations

Conservative commentators have made what appear to be preemptive accusations that Fitzgerald is a partisan. Numerous Fox News personalities -- including Chris Wallace, Sean Hannity, Stuart Varney, and Bill O'Reilly -- have stated that his probe represents the " criminalization of politics." William Kristol penned a Weekly Standard editorial on the topic titled " Criminalizing Conservatives." On the October 19 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto , nationally syndicated radio host Mike Gallagher claimed that this investigation -- like the recent indictment of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) on money laundering charges -- "is driven by partisan politics."

But Fitzgerald is no Democratic partisan. In September 2001, President Bush appointed Fitzgerald to his current post as U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois upon the recommendation of then-Sen. Peter Fitzgerald (R-IL). When then-deputy attorney general James Comey selected Fitzgerald as special prosecutor in December 2003, he cited his "sterling reputation for integrity and impartiality" and described him as "an absolutely apolitical career prosecutor." And in a recent interview on NBC's Today, President Bush described the prosecutor's investigation as "dignified." Moreover, in his capacity as U.S. attorney, Fitzgerald is also currently conducting an " intense" investigation of the Democratic mayor of Chicago, Richard M. Daley, and his administration.

Despite Fitzgerald's background, Limbaugh suggested on the October 20 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show that if the outcome of the CIA leak investigation is "over the top," he and other conservatives may target the prosecutor:

LIMBAUGH: [W]e're going to be watching ... very carefully here to see what Fitzgerald does, the special prosecutor here. If he conducts himself in a way that we find over the top, we'll say so. You can count on it. Now, you liberals, you viciously attacked [former independent counsel] Ken Starr. You went out there and tried to portray him as a sexual pervert, a voyeur. You did everything you could to destroy Ken Starr's reputation and his life, and now you demand that we accept whatever comes down the pike that we must be consistent. Well, it depends on what it is. If it stinks, I will say so. Pure and simple.

Falsehood: Leaks go on all the time in Washington

In defense of the Bush administration officials alleged to have disclosed Plame's CIA identity, numerous media figures have attempted to downplay the alleged leak as par for the course in Washington. Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen claimed that such leaking is "what Washington does day in and day out" and that it "is rarely considered a crime." On the October 20 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews , Republican strategist Ed Rollins stated, "We know for sure that a couple of very high-ranking White House guys talked to some reporters and basically tried to go out and diminish someone who was criticizing them. I mean, that goes on every single day in the White House."

But Cohen and Rollins glossed over the fact that this leak allegedly involved the identity of a CIA operative -- potentially a crime -- although Cohen subsequently issued a " clarification" in which, responding to readers, he wrote that he does consider "the outing of a covert employee a serious matter." Former President George H.W. Bush expressed his view of such actions during an April 26, 1999, speech at the dedication of the CIA's George Bush Center for Intelligence. He stated: "I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors."