And a response to the latest comment....

I sadly have not been following the Massachusetts governors’ race. I guess I had just assumed I’d vote for Kerry Healey. I’m not sure where she stands on too much, but I’m certain it’s bound to be better than Patrick. I’m thinking Patrick might just be a shoe in however unless someone has some good dirt on the guy.

I couldn’t vote for Patrick even if I had wanted too, because I’m not a democrat. If independents can vote in primaries in Mass., I’m not aware.

Before I switch over into the next subject I thought I would include this excellent description which even goes as far to separate, Christian, Jewish, and Islamic Fundamentalism.

What in the Name of God?Religious Fundamentalism, Fear & Terrorism

And now, let’s change the subject to Christian Fundamentalism. It’s a fine line Tim. They really aren’t that different. And you need to remind yourself that the people blowing themselves up are extremists, not the average Fundamentalist Islamic faithful. However I think that can be a boundary all too easily crossed.

First Tim wrote:

“People have every right to their beliefs and to believe I'm a fool for not
agreeing with them. Let them - they're not inhibiting my freedom. Of course,
I'll take some issue if they try to spread their influence in places it doesn't
belong. I've never had a problem with crèches in city commons, for instance, but
I think trying to indoctrinate via the schools is not right - that's what church
and Sunday school is for. But when they use their beliefs as justification for
taking my life away from me, that's when I've got a bit of a problem with them.
Best as I can tell, that's not the preferred method of conversion for Southern
Christians.”

First, they want to inhibit freedoms. They want to sensor, they want to prohibit yamikas and burqas, but crucifixes are just fine. They even want to do silly things like ban Halloween.

Luckily we are civilized enough as a Nation where we generally don’t shoot missiles at people throwing rocks. In recent times our “persecution” of people who are different has been almost nonexistent. There are areas of prejudice, and some occasional rights issues that need addressing, but we’ve come a long way in a couple hundred years. Just 70 years ago people probably would not take much time to investigate the murder of a black person. I’m actually quite certain in many ways the government even promoted it. We have improved our system of law and order even though it still has many flaws.

If there wasn’t the risk of jail, or consequences, you can bet that not just the fundamentalists but slowly people all around us would start killing. They would be only a select few at first but it would spread like the plague.

We may be a lot more reluctant to kill on our doorsteps but not so much when the violence can’t be seen.

Our country is currently using the beliefs of a group of people as justification for taking the lives away from others. Yes… we take precautions to avoid civilian casualties. But we know they will happen, we didn’t have a solid cause for battle, and yet we proceeded. To the Islamic mother who lost her ten year old to shrapnel, she very much sees a nation willing to kill for what it believes in.

Now I don’t know about you but I was taught (By people who would disagree most of what I say in this blog) that killing is wrong unless it is life or death. Iraq was not life or death.

When we funded the Taliban in the 80s and Saddam in the 80s it was not life or death. We did it because we did not want Communism to spread; we aided Saddam to fight Iran. So he happened to be committing genocide at the same time? It was no hair off our chests because all we cared about was that the Communists and their friends were being pestered. Pretty ironic that Bush constantly uses the genocide that we funded as a case to justify his removal of Saddam. Even more ironic is that Donald Rumsfeld is the guy that helped make Saddam more powerful to begin with.

Now I know I’ve gone off on a tangent… but hear me out. It has a purpose, it isn’t just a diversion.

Fundamentalism is divisive. Division leads to hate. Hate leads to fighting and violence.

You tell people that they worship the one true god, and that everyone else is trying to destroy that and has been corrupted by the devil… You do these things, and ONLY bad things will come of it. Prayer in school is the least of our concerns. We are a people who under the right circumstances are willing to kill for what we believe in.

If I had to kill an attacker to save my own life I would or I’d probably die trying.

People are being convinced by greedy leaders that they are being attacked. Fundamentalist preachers (Not Billy Graham as I’ll explain below) are teaching that “different” people aren’t just misguided but that they are BAD.

The fundamentalists don’t want to live amongst people who are unique. They want you to be like them. I guess to some degree it’s a bit of human nature, but I think it is a primitive animal instinct.

Change can happen really fast. Not many expected that the tidy 50s would give way to the hedonistic abandon of the 60s and the 70s but it did.

A hate fueled group of people could promote a lot of change.

First off a literal interpretation of a book that contains several different, often contradicting versions of the same story doesn’t make any sense. While relative, it goes down a path I don’t want to necessarily take in this rebuttal but I believe it merits a mention.

Next let’s go on to mainstream “Christian” American icons, since you brought them up.

Billy Graham is a bad example: The excerpts below are from Wikipedia (hope that doesn’t take away the legitimacy of the information :D !)

Politically, Graham has been a registered member of the Democratic Party, although in recent years he has adopted a flexible position, choosing to cast his vote with either party, depending on which he considers most appropriate at the time. He has had close relationships with Lyndon B. Johnson and Bill Clinton, but he is also very close to the Bush family.

Graham has been criticized for years by many Christian Fundamentalists for his inclusive message and his close relationship with the Roman Catholic Church (especially for his friendship with the late Pope John Paul II).
Christian fundamentalism emphasizes doctrinal purity, Believer's baptism, and separatism, while Graham has taken a more evangelical position of cooperation wherever possible with other Christian denominations. In 2006, Newsweek reporter Jon Meacham characterized Graham's brand of Christianity as "conservative but not fundamentalist.”

I personally don’t think of Graham as a fundamentalist either, but, to support that belief, one might bring this up which is sort of an example of the behavior I was talking about.

In 2002, declassified "Richard Nixon tapes" revealed remarks made by Graham to President Richard M. Nixon decades earlier. Graham openly voiced his belief that Jews control the American media, calling it a "stranglehold" during a 1972 conversation with Nixon. "This stranglehold has got to be broken or the country's going down the drain," said Graham, agreeing with Nixon's comments about Jews and their influence in American life. Later, Graham mentions that he has friends in the media who are Jewish, saying they "swarm around me and are friendly to me." But, he confides to Nixon, "They don't know how I really feel about what they're doing to this country." These remarks were highly controversial, with many characterizing them as anti-Semitic.

When the tapes were released, Graham apologized for his remarks, stating that
"although I have no memory of the occasion, I deeply regret comments I
apparently made ... They do not reflect my views, and I sincerely apologize for
any offense caused by the remarks. If it wasn't on tape, I would not have
believed it. I guess I was trying to please... I went to a meeting with Jewish
leaders and I told them I would crawl to them to ask their forgiveness."
According to Newsweek magazine, "the shock of the revelation was magnified
because of Graham's longtime support of Israel and his refusal to join in calls
for the conversion of the Jews."

NOW… I thought I’d move on to someone who is dangerous in my opinion, and he has his own television program. Pat Robertson. These quotes are from his letters to supporters and from the 700 club.

“If Christian people work together, they can succeed during this decade in winning back control of the institutions that have been taken from them over the past 70 years. Expect confrontations that will be not only unpleasant but at times physically bloody.... This decade will not be for the faint of heart, but the resolute. Institutions will be plunged into wrenching change. We will be
living through one of the most tumultuous periods of human history. When it is over, I am convinced God's people will emerge victorious.” (Physically bloody…. Nothing at all like Islamic Fundamentalist’s rhetoric or public relations tactics, no comparison, none at all)

As I add in more quotes lets remember that Robertson’s followers are in the tens of thousands and increasing. He has a syndicated T.V. program that appears on major and cable networks. They don’t give too much air time to things people don’t watch.

“Ladies and gentlemen, I want to say this very clearly. If the people of the United States -- all across America, in their churches and in their civic groups and in their legislatures -- decide that they're not going to allow the Supreme Court to dominate their lives in the fashion that it has been in this nation, the Supreme Court does not have the power to change that. They are not going to be able to overturn the will of a hundred million American people. And I think the time has come that we throw off the shackles of this dictatorship that's been imposed upon us. We had a war in 1776 that set us free from the shackles of the arbitrary rule of the British crown, and I think what's going on in Corbin, Kentucky, boy, those people like to live free. And I think the time has come that we do that...”

So from Robertson’s tone you’d think this was a serious, serious, offense… actually this is simply Pat getting excited about not being able to put the Ten Commandments on public property.

“I know this is painful for the ladies to hear, but if you get married, you have accepted the headship of a man, your husband. Christ is the head of the household and the husband is the head of the wife, and that's the way it is, period.”

(And Pat wonders why many women in today’s “evil” world decide against men in their lives)

“If the widespread practice of homosexuality will bring about the destruction of your nation, if it will bring about terrorist bombs, if it'll bring about earthquakes, tornadoes and possibly a meteor, it isn't necessarily something we ought to open our arms to.”

“I think we ought to close Halloween down. Do you want your children to dress up as witches? The Druids used to dress up like this when they were doing human sacrifice... [Your children] are acting out Satanic rituals and participating in it, and don't even realize it.”

This is a sentiment that seems to catch on more every year as trick or treaters disappear and many “fundamentalists” communities, most of which reside in the south, have banned celebration of the holiday. What’s that? We have freedom of religion in the U.S. you say?
Apparently someone didn’t get the memo.

Pat Roberson promotes an agenda of hatred. Hatred promotes violence.
Now don’t get me wrong…. I don’t think we should stifle these fundamentalists with legislation and definitely not force, but acceptance over exclusion needs to be promoted in this world.

And then there is Jerry Falwell:

“Liberal civil liberties groups, feminists, homosexuals and abortion rights supporters bear partial responsibility...because their actions have turned God's anger against America." (You’re right Tim they are sooo different)

In an interview given on September 30, 2002, for the October 6 edition of 60 Minutes, Falwell said: "I think Muhammad was a terrorist. I read enough by both Muslims and non-Muslims, [to decide] that he was a violent man, a man of war."
The following Friday, Mohsen Mojtahed Shabestari, the spokesman of Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khameini, issued a fatwa for Falwell's death, saying that Falwell was a "mercenary and must be killed," and, "The death of that man is a religious duty, but his case should not be tied to the Christian community."

The irony is how non Christian, all these champions of modern U.S. Christianity are.
Of course if you get into the “defining Christianity” debate that is yet another can of worms I’ll leave alone.

Our battle in Iraq and religion are NOT mutually exclusive. Religion is very much a part of it. Religion, or religious extremists are very much the cause. Regardless of whether you think Bush is on a crusade, or whether he is simply retaliating against an extremist Islamic crusade, the difference in beliefs are the root.

In WWII, greed was the factor, yet religion, and religious differences, they were motivators. Politicians, much like religious figures, motivate people by dividing.

Bush’s plan was to invade Iraq to set up a base to bring American values and lifestyle to all of the Middle East. Bush has said himself, that he feels that he was chosen by God. Bush has called the mission a crusade. This is a culture war, and sadly both sides could probably make a decent argument about who began the whole fiasco. The only way to change this is to accept people who are different.

Now, I’m not saying it would be a bad thing if woman could walk around with equal rights, and people weren’t suicide bombing each other. The problem is, sure, we’re better than the terrorists, BUT, we are still killing to spread what we believe. I happen to think there may have been a better way, but this way had so much more emotion behind it… not to mention the profits of spreading fear for politicians and old military strategists. Haliburton! (Ahem) excuse me I sneezed.

As long as we are insecure as a people, then we will be manipulated for the non stop power struggle by those we’ve allowed sit in the thrones.
Some other links:

The Rise of Neo-Fundamentalism

The rise of global fundamentalism From the National Catholic Reporter