A nut is a nut is a nut

One thing the Bush presidency has done to turn many Americans into hypocrites.

Partisans claiming admiration for civil liberties support illegal wiretaps. Conservatives claiming to be "pro-life" oppose life-improving or -saving measures like medicinal marijuana and stem-cell research. Republicans supposedly strong on national security endorse an administration willing to out a vital CIA operative simply to intimidate whistle-blowers and settle a score.

But the most hypocritical, to me, are the "good Christians" uttering hate speech they would spend a lifetime decrying if it came from those we consider "terrorists."

On a national level, it's rather easy to find examples of so-called Christians making statements that would cause Al Qaeda leaders to blush. In fact, I could devote this entire entry to Pat Robertson if I wanted to. Over the last year, this radical American cleric has called for a political assassination and threatened an entire town - something he's done before. Elsewhere, Fox's John Gibson wished the London terror attacks on France, while Bill O'Reilly suggested executing Guantanamo detainees. Tom DeLay threatened those fighting to let Terri Schiavo die in peace. DeLay's congressional colleague, Rick Santorum, blamed liberals for church sex abuse.

While these household names make waves, taking a closer look at hatred masking itself as Christianity - giving those decent, positive Christians that are out there a bad name - reveals a stunning picture. Remember the North Carolina church that excommunicated Democrats? Or the Texas school that, thanks to parental pressure, replaced cross-dressing day with Camo Day? Or the Kansas professor severely beaten for his views critical of Christian fundamentalism. Across America, there's a Christian Taliban rivaling that of the original Taliban.

I'm no stranger to these crazies myself. Take the "patriot" who suggested - in a response to a story I wrote about America's nationalistic slide - keeping Muslims in a makeshift zoo, under armed guard. Or the Brad Stine fan threatening to "bible thump" me for criticizing the hateful "comic." Those of you who regularly read liberal blogs know that insane comments like these coming from "good folks" are the rule, not the exception.

My point is this: A nut is a nut is a nut. Why do we treat these terrible statements any differently than we do those coming from those "evil-doers" overseas? Why do the Robertsons of the world get a free pass when they take a page right out of the Taliban playbook? Why do we allow divisive comments simply because they're wrapped in an American flag and hiding behind the Bible? Extremism is extremism, whether we're talking about the Middle East or the Middle West. Fundamentalism - Christian or Muslim - is the problem, and we should stop excusing those sharing our nationality from doing outrageous things in our name.

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I consider Americans willing to infringe the rights of other Americans just as bad as those "freedom haters" we so love to stereotype. Terrorists, Bush says, want to tear America apart, dividing us however possible. Well, it's working - thanks in no small part to the hateful rhetoric coming from within America. So isn't it time, after all, that we recognize that we're not dealing with apples and oranges here, but apples and apples?

In American society, what better way to recognize facts and illustrate history than the game show? As Daily Kos commenter Albatross suggested, perhaps we need such a show to prove to everyone how radical some fundamentalist Christians really are, how the difference between them and those we consider enemies of the state is so shockingly slim. I say we call it "Terrorist or Terroristian?" A little blunt, sure, but I think it gets to the heart of the matter rather well, don't you?

I envision "Terrorist or Terroristian?" as a take-off on "JEOPARDY!" Think of the categories! "Osama or Robertson?" "The role of women". "Homosexuality". "Science". "Famous fatwas". "Potent potables". The possibilities are endless. Our Trabek-in-training would state a quote or philosophy and the contestants would have to guess whether the answer came from a fuzzy tape broadcast on al-Jazeera or "The 700 Club". And if you've been paying attention to what's been coming from the radical religious right these days, you'll know that it doesn't take Ken Jennings to recognize what a show like "Terrorist or Terroristian?" would prove:

A nut is a nut is a nut.

Comments

[Walter Wouk]

Yesterday, December 28th, Mark Belling, a guest host on the Rush Limbaugh show, stated that George Bush was forced to authorize illegal domestic surveillance because he knew that the "leftist judges" on the FISA Court wouldn't accomodate his "Wish List."

These people regard anyone who disagrees with George Bush as a "leftist" and an enemy of his neo-fascist regime.

They're "right" for all the wrong reasons.

[Joseph]

Well said, Walter.

[John]

Hey Hughes...

Just passing through. BTW, I'm a native Buckeye myself - PhD from OSU, back in the state after having been elsewhere for a decade or so...

I hear this a lot, and I hope you don't mind me disagreeing with your analysis.

First, you probably know how drug packaging is labelled by "active ingredients?" The stuff that is actually effective is named, the stuff that isn't, may or may not even be mentioned.

Religion, unfortunately, tends to be the opposite of drug labelling. The active ingredient in a person's beliefs aren't usually how they label their beliefs. That's the problem, not fundamentalism.

You're right that radical right "Christians" and Muslim terrorists share their true beliefs. But that in itself rules out fundamentalism, since they don't profess the same religions. Think about it - if someone is REALLY fundamental about a religion, his beliefs would be pretty close to someone else whose beliefs are also really fundamental. The point is that what gets called fundamentalism isn't, at all.

It's not just hypocrisy, either, though hypocrisy is at least a result of the phenomenon.

I consider myself a charismatic fundamentalist Christian, but I actually read and study the Bible, in the original languages as well as English. I frankly don't trust my interpretations of King James English, because even though it seems to be my language, ... it isn't. Shakespeare wrote in the same language, and I have real trouble with Shakespeare, though it's OK to have such trouble with Shakespeare - it's not OK to have it with the Bible.

Jesus Christ was a socialist, in modern terminology, and the early church was communist. This should not be a point of controversy, it's so clear from the New Testament. I have called myself a socialist since a few years after I became a Christian - it was clear to me. Consider Acts 2:42-45, where the word "koinonia" is used in the original language - I believe "communism" is an accurate translation, and the context of its use (it's usually "fellowship" in verse 42) proves that it's accurate. There's also a word for "capitalism," used in 1 Timothy 6:10 - _philarguria_ is that one word, and "the love of money" is weaker than we might now imagine (it would be _patharguria_ if it was to mean what many want it to mean).

The Bible is clear on when human life begins, and it's not at conception - it's at first breath. And Jesus did speak more or less directly on the subject, if one understands his original words in context (John 3 particularly, notably John 3:8). The NT is full of contrasts between flesh and spirit, and this subject is one of those contrasts. The OT is just as direct: Genesis 2:7 and Ezekiel 37 are good examples.

The hatred of homosexuality is hard to explain, considering that there is not similar hatred of other "sins", like lying, pride, and greed. One shouldn't stop at Romans 1:27 on the subject - it is vividly pornographic in the original Greek, and I'm sure was meant to be so. One should focus instead on Romans 2:1, and take pains not to be intolerant.

What does a Republican hate more than abortion, homosexuality, and possibly even terrorism? Yep - communism and socialism, the actual political philosophy of the Jesus and the New Testament. How many times did Jesus talk about government? Lots, if one recognizes that _basileia_ in Greek means what we mean when we refer to government - it was translated "kingdom" for old King James, but is a more general term than just "monarchy". Do Republicans see government the was Jesus did? Not even close. Anti-communism comes pretty close to defining Republican ideology. That would mean though, in an objective analysis, that "Republican" would mean "anti-Christian", not Christian at all. So much for fundamentalism, if you ask me.

The problem is not fundamentalism - not much of fundamentalism is in evidence in the people both you and I are concerned about - the problem is false, and indeed deceptive, labelling. The question for understanding who is being deceived...

[John]

Got truncated - here's the rest...

The hatred of homosexuality is hard to explain, considering that there is not similar hatred of other "sins", like lying, pride, and greed. One shouldn't stop at Romans 1:27 on the subject - it is vividly pornographic in the original Greek, and I'm sure was meant to be so. One should focus instead on Romans 2:1, and take pains not to be intolerant.

What does a Republican hate more than abortion, homosexuality, and possibly even terrorism? Yep - communism and socialism, the actual political philosophy of the Jesus and the New Testament. How many times did Jesus talk about government? Lots, if one recognizes that _basileia_ in Greek means what we mean when we refer to government - it was translated "kingdom" for old King James, but is a more general term than just "monarchy". Do Republicans see government the way Jesus did? Not even close. Anti-communism comes pretty close to defining Republican ideology. That would mean though, in an objective analysis, that "Republican" would mean "anti-Christian", not Christian at all. So much for fundamentalism, if you ask me.

We should in the US have a government "of, by and for the people." That's pretty much what Jesus advocated, translated just a bit to a secular perspective. He wanted 100% of us to be included in the "kingdom of heaven." If more Americans were fundamentalists about American principles, we'd want 100% of us to be included as well where government is concerned. And yes, that's called socialism in our age, and yes, Republicans hate the very idea.

The problem is not fundamentalism - not much of fundamentalism is in evidence in the people both you and I are concerned about - the problem is false, and indeed deceptive, labelling. The question for understanding who is being deceived...

[Freaked-Out Canadian]

It would be interesting to re-stage some of these conversations, replace each reference to 'God' with 'Allah', have Arab actors play the fundamentalists -but in robes and turbans - and see what it all looks like through new eyes.

Remember the news anchor who found the Muslim call to prayer chilling but, likely, would not have found the ringing of church bells to be all that scary. Or the journalist who found Muslim's praying to Allah before a soccer game to be a sign of fanaticism, but wouldn't blink at an NBA team's group prayer.

We need to see Western fanaticism, invasion, abuse, torture, and intolerance for what it is. We need to examine our own invisible bias and our history.

We barely remember Iran Air Flight 655, nor the fact that we commited this offence in support of our then-ally, Saddam Hussain. We have forgotten who helped provide Saddam with WMD's, and who provided denials and cover for their use against the Kurds. Saddam, Osama, Noriega, Pinochet, Somoza. Who created, supported and funded these latter-day monsters?

Pinter's Nobel Lecture got scant coverage in the American press because he reminded all of us of our blindness, our duplicity, and of the darkness at the heart of our democratic illusions.

He reminds us that hypocrisy is the root of all evil.

[Mr Fiddlehead]

John, the bible is all lies. Jesus never lived, he was a construction of various mythological figures, there is ample evidence to support this view. Besides, christianity is just fucking creepy.

Freaked-out Canadian, you hit the nail on the head.

[gary]

Interesting discussion. Here's my take: if I look at any behaviours and professed beliefs that promote hatred, division, prejudice, intolerance and sometimes outright harm... I don't care if they are based on the alleged stories and words of Jesus, Mohamed, Buddha or Groucho Marx.

On a basic level of cultural acceptance - if I ran around saying I believed when I die I'm going to paradise because I accepted that someone named Jesus was born from a virgin, came alive after being murdered, died for me etc... Well, I suspect I'd be locked up or at least seriously diagnosed.

If millions of people do that, adding some nice hate to the mix - hey, that's okay - that's simply their belief. They might even get a President in their pew with 'em.

[Roger]

I happen to live on the beautiful Hudson river and have my morning cup of coffee watching this majestic gem. If I were to proclaim that I saw a big fish swallow a man and then a few days later spit him out on the shore the reaction would be mixed. Some would accuse me of mockery of their religion, others would say I was just having some fun, and others would try to have me committed. Did you guess - mockery? Great! You win!
Who would believe this shit? Only a nut case. Can you say FUNDIE?

[Bob]

Joseph/John

You are talking about that weak liberal Jesus that these nutjobs hate as much any other liberal.

That is why they are trying to put the Ten Commandments on the courthouse walls instead of the Golden Rule (Jesus's , not the two Republican ones.)

You are talking about the Christianity of the Late Roman Era before Constantine boggled it
by mixing it with State Politics.

They are talking about the Christianity based on the Mid 1800's inventions of, Rapture, Armageddon, etc woven around Revelations/End of times stuff that had been pretty much let go when the world didn't end on schedule the first time.

Theirs is the fire breathing Jesus coming back as an actual King (and them working him like a puppet from behind the curtains)

Manu has masked himself as Yehweh even from the early days but never so much as now.

[Eric Viau]

We are witnesses to the start of the Decline of the American Empire...The United States will have to wake up soon, or it will get destoyed from within. Beware of the rise of fascism, it is creepy. Only the voices of mainstraem Americans can stop fascism. Start by taking back your bullshit media. (Except for the Internet...for now).

[Dan]

Just remember, the decline of the Roman Empire began sometime shortly after Christianity became the state religion...

[Romelee]

Boy what next don~t anyone believe in old time religlion any more? With evrything going on in the world why did they pick religion to use to get elected? Isee people folloowing like lambs to the brink. wake up people bewhat and who you wont to be. Your the one that has to answer to God .

[Bob]

If it only the American Empire that was what was declining it would be a pity but little more than that.

As much as enviornmental damage followed the use of fossil fuels, they were necessary to get to the next step that humans as a species could drag themselves from the ooze of our ignorance into a better brighter humanity, perhaps out to the stars.

But the Ooze is climbing up after us, and if it wins, all that has been sacraficed (including the enviornment) will be lost forever.

Without cheap energy to pull us out of warlordism and slavery, everything we think of as civilization will be lost as well. And not in a thousand years or 10 million will it be rebuilt!