The Christo-Fascist American Taliban
A few months ago, President Bush spoke out against against the House deliberations regarding the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
He said that the proposed legislation would put the fledling democracy and the good Iraqi people at risk, and that such a proposal was "mean-spirited" and "certainly not in keeping with my understanding of the Scriptures, because this bill would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably even Jesus himself."
The Left SCREAMED and thrashed about like a vampire getting a crucifix hammered into its heart.
Actually:
He said that the proposed legislation would put the fledling democracy and the good Iraqi people at risk, and that such a proposal was "mean-spirited" and "certainly not in keeping with my understanding of the Scriptures, because this bill would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably even Jesus himself."
The Left SCREAMED and thrashed about like a vampire getting a crucifix hammered into its heart.
Actually:
On Wednesday Hillary spoke out once again against the House bill to prevent and punish illegal immigration, only this time she claimed she had God on her side. Mrs. Clinton said the proposed legislation is "mean-spirited" and "certainly not in keeping with my understanding of the Scriptures, because this bill would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably even Jesus himself."The Left smiled and applauded.
posted by John | 11:51 PM
13 Comments:
So they approve of "God" only if he is on their side.
That explains everything!!
Actually, it is pretty funny when she "clearly" is mocking the fool.
"Clearly," Anonymous? To you and others who support her and smile and applaud her mockery.
But the others who are targeted for this are meant to take it quite sincerely.
What's funny is that she thinks it's not clear to them, as well.
But the point of this is that never has Bush linked Jesus by name to a policy.
Never.
Yet she just did. As has Howard Dean, John Kerry, and other God-forsaken Lefties.
Yet Bush is the "Christo-fascist."
Why?
Simply because he's a true believer.
Ergo, it's not about Bush's alleged compromising of the separation of Church and State.
Hillary just fearlessly linked them ("fearless" because her supporters--like you, presumably--know she's just mocking while earnestly trying to deceive an entire demographic of fellow Americans she wants to lord over).
It's simply about Bush's Christianity.
What would the Bush-hating Left say if President Bush had said this at his inaugurations, or about Afghanistan and Iraq:
"Now is the time to open the doors of opportunity to all of God's children....I just want to do God’s will...Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord."
Conniptions: "MANICHAEAN!" "Christo-Fascist!"
The Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. actually spoke those words.
As moral backing for political policies.
What's wrong with that?
What's "offensive" about that?
Nothing.
Is Hillary mocking him, as well?
Guys, if I'm not mistaken... Wasn't Hillary refering to a provision in the Bill that would criminalize churches who offered aid to illegal immigrants? Again, I don't know the context of the quote, but if that is what she's refering to, then her reference to scripture is indeed justified. Unless y'all believe Jesus was anti-immigrant...
Good point LS. In that context, it was appropriate.
However, the overarching point stands.
Let's just say Anonymous is wrong when he said that in her invocations she was merely "mocking the fool" and that she was sincere.
And let's just say that when Bush was stumping around for his Faith-Based Initiatives early in the first term-- when the "He's-Tearing-Down-The-Wall-Between-Church-&-State!" howls began-- he called the critics of the program "mean spirited" and said that the criticism was "certainly not in keeping with my understanding of the Scriptures, because (opposition to) this bill would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably even Jesus himself," in all sincerity.
What would have been the response?
This: "He's a Christo-fascist American Taliban!"
I think you see my point.
But Bush never said that.
And Hillary just did.
And the response?
Giddy applause, acquiescence, and even Anonymous' shameless approval that she was mocking.
What Anonymous doesn't seem to realize is that if she was, in fact, "mocking," that is all the more reason to deny her any real power, not for what she was mocking, but because she was mocking.
That Anonymous is probably Lee-Harvey.
He likes to mock, and sneer, and so approved.
I try not to give TOO much credence to anonymous posts. If you believe it, stand by it... But Hillary's invocation of religion was crucial to the issue discussed. No offense, but isn't it a little disingenuos (sp?) for you to call her out and not point out the context of the quote? Clearly Kelly saw it as Hillary pandering to religous groups, would her opinion be different if she knew Hillary was speaking out against a provision that criminalizes churches etc. from helping the poor? Is this something Jesus was for or against?
Again, I acknowledged that you have a good point there.
But the theme of the post was not Hillary's use of religious references--even when apropos--but the double standard when Bush is accused of compromising the separation of Church & State (and as being a "Christo-fascist," a "Manichaean," etc.) when he never even preached to that extent in a similar context (e.g. when pushing for the Faith-Based Initiative).
Are you implying that there is a double standard because hillary invoked the name of Jesus in defense of a law that was targeting christians? I'd agree with your point if you had numerous examples of leftist Presidents invoking religioun to the extent Bush has. Of course MLK did it, he was a preacher not an elected head of state. Bush has every right to invoke his religion but he does do it more than any other president in recent memory. The problem with your post is you portray what you contend is liberal hypocracy by implying we invoke religoun whenever it suits us to no reaction; that is not the case. If a lib starts saying we shouldn't invade Iran cuz Jesus wants us to spread peace not war than you'd have a more valid point.
LS asked:
"Are you implying that there is a double standard because hillary invoked the name of Jesus in defense of a law that was targeting christians?"
No. I've said you have a good point there.
But the point of this post is the double-standard with Bush.
Again, imagine that when Bush was stumping around for his Faith-Based Initiatives early in the first term-- when the "He's-Tearing-Down-The-Wall-Between-Church-&-State!" howls began-- he called the critics of the program "mean spirited" and said that the criticism was "certainly not in keeping with my understanding of the Scriptures, because (opposition to) this bill would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably even Jesus himself."
Review what was said about that without him even saying such things.
Also, despite Hillary's remarks being made in the proper context, she is one of the last people that people of faith would buy a WWJD lecture from.
They know she's politicizing religion for her own wordly purposes.
Anonymous himself--a defender--let her slide because he discerned tongue-in-cheek mockery...
...and approved.
That confirms what the Right knows: The double-standard exists because the Left knows that their own don't really believe what they themselves are saying but are just being Machiavellian.
Bill Clinton was transparent in his masquerades and pandering to the religious sensibilities, making sure to have his Sunday morning Bible-toting church attendance photographed for the Monday morning edition.
He was sure to place the Bible in the Number One spot in his "Favorite Books" list (no mention of Machiavelli's *The Prince* which was responsible for The Bible appearing in the Number One spot!)
Then he had his pathetic "I-Have-Sinned" Walk to Canossa moment.
It was all form and zero function (aside from the function of politics).
World-renowned writer Gabriel Garcia Marquez said that Clinton told him "The only people I really hate are the Christian fundamentalists" (or something precisely to that effect).
Why pretend otherwise?
He's a phony, and so's she.
Nothing about either one of them inspires piety.
I don't demand piety from politicians, I just expect them to be who they are and stop pretending to be something they're not.
"I'd agree with your point if you had numerous examples of leftist Presidents invoking religioun to the extent Bush has."
After the 2004 electoral disaster for the Democrats, the dying Left first went through a period denial ("It was the Diebold machines!") then anger ("Red-Staters shouldn't decide who's President of the UNited States!") and then acceptance and a new strategy ("Let's talk like red-staters!")!
The Democrats began taking BIBLE LESSONS, and you started hearing Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi quoting Scripture and invoking Jesus like Elmer Gantries!
It was shameless and pathetic.
For example:
Dean saw fit to announce that he is a "committed believer in Jesus Christ."
He told writer Sarah Schweitzer that he planned to include references to Jesus and God in his speeches as he campaigns down South--The Land of Confederate Flags and pick-up trucks that he had ridiculed!
He also said:
"Christ was someone who sought out people who were disenfranchised, people who were left behind."
In other words, Christ would have been a Democrat!
But as to Dean's sophomoric exegesis, Christ didn't "seek them out" so much as they sought out Christ.
That's an important theological distinction.
Christ made no class distinctions. He ministered equally to a rich Pharisees, Roman officers, tax-collectors, lepers, and prostitutesa alike.
He was above politics, which fellow Jews didn't like and which the Romans didn't buy.
But Born-Again "theologian" Dean (who had earlier said that the Book of Job was his favorite New Testament story) all of a sudden sees fit to preach that Jesus would have been a Democrat!
(simultaneously implying, of course, that Republicans are the "party of the rich" and don't care about the poor).
The “God’s-on-our-side” rhetoric offered as "proof" of Republican self-righteousness is the quote of an obscure alternate delegate to the 2004 Republican National Convention and New York Governor George Pataki (no darling of the religious Right), "proof" that the GOP considers itself “God’s Official Party” (and the Left ran with the quote as if it was the party platform).
For his part, Bush has said stuff like freedom is “God’s gift to every man and woman in this world”-- same kinda stuff every president has expressed in one way or another.
And yet, Dean saw fit to counter the "egregiousness" of the alleged party-line that the GOP was "God's Official Party" not by setting an example of not repeating the egregiousness, but by suggesting that, no, it is the Democrats who are the "true" Party of God!
After all, didn't Al Gore put an Orthodox Jew on his ticket to prove it?
lol
"Of course MLK did it, he was a preacher not an elected head of state."
But he was spearheading political policy.
And he had the right morality on his side.
The Left is not so acquiescing, however, when preachers of the Religious Right try to influence policies with religious references, is it?
They can say, "Well, this time they happen to have the wrong morality," but that is not so: Thery are drawing from the same moral canon as MLK did.
"Tis the double-standard, Sanjay.
"Bush has every right to invoke his religion but he does do it more than any other president in recent memory."
No he doesn't. Clinton blows him away, beginning with his "New Covenant" BULLSHIT from the 1992 election and ending with his "I-Have-Sinned" mea culpa and his hiring of three "spiritual advisors" to "prove" that he was repentant.
That was pathetic.
Is that the kind of admission of mistakes the Left has been demanding of No-Apologies Bush for years now?
Do you want Bush to come out and engage in the Jimmy-Swaggart/Bill-Clinton "I-Have-Sinned" bathos?
That ain't gonna happen.
He has too much self-respect and class.
"The problem with your post is you portray what you contend is liberal hypocracy by implying we invoke religoun whenever it suits us to no reaction."
It's true.
"that is not the case."
"We worship an awesome God in the blue states."
Barak Obama, 2004, the Kerry Convention.
What's Barak implying there, Sanjay?
That the God of the red-states isn't as awesome? Is different?
Or that, believe it or not, blue-state liberals worship God?
Why would people have to be told that?
And isn't Bush the one who was supposed to engage in divisive rhetoric?
And, delivering a sermon in the liberal Riverside Church on Manhattan's Upper West Side the day before the Republican convention began, Bill "I-Have-Sinned" Clinton saw fit to tell the congregation that when he first heard the portion of the Bible in which God tells Isaiah, "Fear not for I will redeem thee. Call me by thy name. Thou art mine," was he saying that the Democratic Party was saying that liberals--and by extension Democrats--were God's Chosen?
God's Official Party?
But, again, the Left freaked out the very next week when the obscure alternate delegate to the 2004 Republican National Convention--not a former Republican president!--said that the GOP was “God’s Official Party”!
Double-standard, Sanjay.
"If a lib starts saying we shouldn't invade Iran cuz Jesus wants us to spread peace not war than you'd have a more valid point."
So would the lib.
Well, anyway, Bush did suggest that God wants us to spread freedom.
But he's got a point there, too.
"Spreading freedom" would fall under the category of "good works."
Where we would disagree, I presume, would be on whether the spreading of freedom is the ultimate goal of Operation Iraqi...well, Freedom, or whether that's just a pretense for claim-jumping oil-wells Texas style and creating a new client state for our imperial ambitions.
Your Obama quote... What is the context? Go back and read the speach; you're taking a line in a speach about inclusion and making it about division! He said something to the effect of "We worship an awesome god in the blue states and yes we have some gay friends in the red states." With the point being that righties have portrayed blue staters as godless atheists. It isn't as you make it out at all. You give me credit for making a point about your out of context quote about hillary, but you turn around and do the same thing again John. This is my problem with the right; you guys take something completely out of context and use it to make points that are invalid in the proper setting. Does the left do it too? Absolutely; but I don't and we should all lead by example.
I remember after 2004 Pelosi started quoting Mathew as justification for entitlement programs. I personally was like like WTF?!!? But is it possible to frame issues in a religious context? Absolutely!
As to Clinton. You can hate Fundamentalist Christians (Or Christo Facist Zombies as I call them) and not hate all christians. I imagine your not a fan of Linc Chafee yet he is a Republican right?
Do you know for a fact Dean or Clinton or Pelosi Aren't believers in Christ just by virtue of the fact that their version of faith differs from yours? Yes, they've tried to frame arguments in a religious context; but your comparing a party that peripherally uses religion to describe certain povs to one that Promotes Creationism and Denies Civil Unions because marriage is a biblical concept.
I won't give credence to an obscure GOPer calling the party the Party of God as both sides have their share of nutbars.
And you can't take someone who says Christ thinks like we do and immediately imply that he disagrees with all other points of veiw. ie. "Christ liked to drink grape juice like we do" doesn't mean he hated people who like apple juice.
LS said...
"Your Obama quote... What is the context? Go back and read the speach; you're taking a line in a speach about inclusion and making it about division! He said something to the effect of 'We worship an awesome god in the blue states and yes we have some gay friends in the red states.'"
I honestly did not get the second part of the statement from the source, so I was not trying to selectively chop.
True, in a superficial sense, he is dismissing the red-state/blue state divisiveness by saying that the supernatural is worshippped in one form or another everywhere, just as there are homosexuals everywhere...
...if not behind enemy lines.
He is being divisive, Sanjay, because he's fully aware of the Culture War and not actually speaking inclusively.
He said "an awesome god," not "THE awesome God" which red staters worship, also an important theological distinction.
Why didn't he just say "We worship the same awesome God in the blue states and the red states alike?"
Or at least just say that the supernatural is worshipped everywhere in one form or another by everyone?
Or even that whether one has faith in theism or not does not define the good American?
Or come out and just say: "I don't which god you red-staters are worshipping, but he shore ain't the Mojo we do!"
He was being implicitly divisive by explicitly making distinctions (another "awesome" god that *we,* but not they, worship).
His attempt to portray his party as the party of centrism--and one of theism-- is also belied by the fact that the overwhelming majority of militant atheists are extreme leftists who vote Democrat.
Admit it, and fight for them.
Why pretend otherwise?
And doesn't he have any straight friends in the red states, or just "friends," period?
Why qualify "friends"--politicize them--with sexual orientation?
Why discriminate One God here versus another "awesome" god there, and gay friends versus straight friends?
He's making class distictions.
He's being being divisive.
"With the point being that righties have portrayed blue staters as godless atheists. It isn't as you make it out at all."
Sure it is.
The Right has been--and still is-- viciously attacked by the Left for being godly theists (i.e. "Manichaeans," "theocrats," "Christo-fascists," etc.)
But then Congressman Obama--during a campaign that needed the swing vote--assurres America that the Left is also Manichaean, theocratic, and Christo-fascist?
What, no?
No, because the "awesome god" he referred to is not the same God of the red-staters that he was nevertheless trying to one-up them on.
"You give me credit for making a point about your out of context quote about hillary, but you turn around and do the same thing again John."
It was an accident, but the point stands.
"This is my problem with the right; you guys take something completely out of context and use it to make points that are invalid in the proper setting."
Like the "Sixteen Words"?
NSA surveillance?
Cheney's hunting accident?
Bush's Evangelical faith?
"Does the left do it too? Absolutely; but I don't and we should all lead by example."
Yes. You've demonstrated integrity. Seriously.
But you're forcing yourself to defend political scoundrels, and consequentially leave your arguments vulnerable to sound rebuttals.
Most of the most powerful libs/Democrats are not worth your loyalty, Sanj. They've betrayed classical liberalism and proven thmselves to be outrageously hypocritical and driven by partisanship (among other things of a self-interested nature), not consistency of principle.
"I remember after 2004 Pelosi started quoting Mathew as justification for entitlement programs. I personally was like like WTF?!!?"
Me too.
"But is it possible to frame issues in a religious context? Absolutely!"
Yes: "Freedom is God’s gift to every man and woman in this world.” George W. Bush
"As to Clinton. You can hate Fundamentalist Christians (Or Christo Facist Zombies as I call them)..."
You can hate whoever you want. I know Clinton hated them. He admitted that to Marquez.
But then he pretended he was sympatico and pathetically pandered to them.
But I know Fundamentalists. And even though they intellectually--and logically--frustrate me, all of whom I know are conscientiously law-abiding, patriotic, and productive citizens who are Forbidden from wishing ill upon their enemies and instead are Commanded to pray for them.
They are into monogamy and the 9-5 and tax-paying obligation to society.
Many of their children serve in U.S. military.
They believe that some things are sacred and should not be tampered with for the sake of secular desire.
They are good Americans.
They do not deserve the calumny they've been subjected to.
"...and not hate all christians."
You shouldn't hate anyone. You should fight that emotion.
"I imagine your not a fan of Linc Chafee yet he is a Republican right?"
I don't know much about him. He represents nothing to me (not even my state).
"Do you know for a fact Dean or Clinton or Pelosi Aren't believers in Christ just by virtue of the fact that their version of faith differs from yours?"
No. I question the integrity of their loudly professed "Christianity" by the vice of their words, their opportunistic, political behavior, and the policies they support.
"Yes, they've tried to frame arguments in a religious context; but your comparing a party that peripherally uses religion to describe certain povs to one that Promotes Creationism and Denies Civil Unions because marriage is a biblical concept."
They're framing their arguments in a religious context because of political pressures.
As I've said, both Dean and Pelosi suddenly "found God" after the debacle of the 2004 election.
They hired tutors to give them crash-course Bible lessons.
"...to one that Promotes Creationism..."
No, the conservatives promote Intelligent Design, which is not the same thing as literalist Creationism.
As for the Creationists (and the flat-earthers, and the earth-worshipping radical environmentalists, and the Wiccans, and astrologists, etc.), they can believe whatever they want to believe (as long as they pay there taxes).
The debate between evolutionists and those who promote Intelligent Design is not a debate between Einstein and Neanderthal Man, but rather between atheism and theism, and whether the latter *possibility* should be included in our children's education.
It' not an attempted theocratic coup of our public education system but more an attempt to reverse the liberal hijacking of it.
"...and Denies Civil Unions because marriage is a biblical concept."
Who denies "civil unions?"
Not President Bush. And not me, who nevertheless reserves the word "marriage" for heterosexual unions.
"I won't give credence to an obscure GOPer calling the party the Party of God as both sides have their share of nutbars."
I like d Ashcroft. Nothing wrong with having an ice-cream & cookies overgrown boyscout at the DoJ, but covering the exposed breast of Lady Justice was a bit nutty (if prudishness is to be equated with nuttiness).
"And you can't take someone who says Christ thinks like we do and immediately imply that he disagrees with all other points of veiw. ie. 'Christ liked to drink grape juice like we do' doesn't mean he hated people who like apple juice."
Very true. But the ideological divide is not apples & oranges, Sanjay, but most often deal with issues of life & death, freedom & slavery, and war & peace, and Christ was not morally equivalent between the pairings.
Post a Comment
<< Home