Showing posts with label Theocracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Theocracy. Show all posts

Monday, February 05, 2007

Bow Your Heads

(I've been away for a few days. 'Tis good to be back.)

George W. Bush, you'll recall, has often been chided for his associations with the "religious right". He has been mocked for admitting during the 2000 presidential campaign that his favorite political philosopher was Jesus Christ. He has been ridiculed for revealing that he prays every day that God would guide him to do the right thing; militant Bush critics even believe this revelation is tantamount to the Commander-in-Chief waging a holy war against Islam, all proof that Mr. Bush holds theocratic ambitions.

But darkness descends on the minds of too many men and women, blinded to the overwhelming fact that there is religion aplenty driving those who adhere to liberalism, or who work to transform the world into the image of the Democratic Party. Without question certain "believers" accept the grandiloquent damnations hurled at religious right activism; and without question they shut their minds to religious leftism and other forms of theocratic emanations.

Who is going to stand up to the great and swaggering behemoth which is the Democratic Party as it bowed its head in prayer the other day? Who is going to demand redress of great religious and ideological grievances brought upon Democrats for their unthinking connivance to appear tolerant, devout, and ever so peaceful?

If you have not already done so, please watch this video clip provided for us by HotAir.com of a Muslim imam invoking "god" at the Democratic National Committee's (DNC) Winter Meeting. It is enough to make one's prayer shawl crawl. It is enough to make one daven in disbelief; to genuflect in semi-conscious bewilderment.

Here is a transcript (thanks to Frontpagemag.com) of the whole prayer (the HotAir excerpt is too abridged):

In the name of God the most merciful, the most compassionate. We thank you, God, to bless us among your creations. We thank you, God, to make us as a great nation. We thank you God, to send us your messages through our father Abraham and Moses and Jesus and Muhammad. Through you, God, we unite. So guide us to the right path. The path of the people you bless, not the path of the people you doom. Help us God to liberate and fill this earth with justice and peace and love and equality. And help us to stop the war and violence, and oppression and occupation. Ameen. [Emphasis added]

I am sure we all would agree that it would be wrong for a President of the United States, the Chief Executive of a nation devoted to separation of powers, particularly the separation of Church and State; it would be wrong of that leader to invoke God's "perfect will" in declaring war against a neighbor, all in the name of Christ. Americans recoil at such religious vigor; they expect there to be a "wall of separation" between the State and its many churches.

But I am equally sure that we all must agree -- along with the deconstructionists among us -- that nowhere in the history of America has any founding document called for the erection of a wall between Mosque and State. For it appears, or so it seems, our friends in attendance at the DNC's meeting have no problem sharing the same podium with an imam invoking Allah to guide national affairs; the Mosque is our political friend. All facetiousness aside, we must (must we not?) be perplexed by the sudden Islamophilism of the DNC.

How interesting it is -- or am I wrong about this? -- that the DNC would be of nearly one mind that it is wrong for any leader to seek God's guidance in starting war, and yet it is somehow right for leaders to seek God's guidance in ending war. How interesting it is that the DNC would countenance a prayer by a man asking for exclusive privileges for a certain set of special people, the good people, and that there would be no such privileges on those God has kindly chosen to "doom." And how interesting it is that God should -- with the Democrats' help and Islam's fervent plea -- bring an end to "occupation" and procure "equality" for all.

Ahh, men.



PEACE.

©Bill Gnade 2007/Contratimes. All Rights Reserved.

Friday, April 29, 2005

My prediction was wrong, in part

©Bill Gnade/2005

OK. So I am not prescient. A week has passed and I did not receive, at least in this weekly news cycle, a single rebuttal regarding my claims that the religious left is bent on creating its own theocracy in America (see The Religious Left Is No Less Threatening posted below). Particularly, my expectation that Unitarian Universalists (UUs) and its association (UUA) would assault me in defense of their unarguable intrusion into politics has not come to pass. But I am bold to say: the silence is deafening.

Before the reader concludes that I am claiming an undue influence on local affairs, perhaps an explanation is in order. The regional Unitarian society in southern NH is large, vociferous, reactionary, and aggressive. There is no want of political activism in the hearts of this bunch, nor is there any lack of stridency. Thus, when I suggest that this group's silence is deafening, I do so believing that its silence is politically deliberate. There is no doubt the Unitarians saw and read my commentary. They hardly miss a trick. Besides, the editor of the paper which printed my letter is a Unitarian, as is her family.

What do we know about the separation of Church and State? I, at least, know that it is not possible. Religion and politics are inextricably entwined. There will never be, nor can there ever be, a secular state.

But let us assume that there is a possibility of secularism. Let us further stipulate that the religious right is jamming Christian theocratic polity down America's throat. And let us stipulate, for sheer fun, that the Democrats are here to protect us from theocracy, as they so unflinchingly claim.

Hear what the head of the Democratic National Committee, Howard Dean, had to say about the wonderful secular tent under which he presides:
"We need to talk about Christian values and how they're Democratic values. Jesus taught to help the least among us. He spent his life reaching out to the disenfranchised. The Democratic Party is the party of that value, not the Republican Party."
OK. So here we have the head of the DNC not only quoting Jesus, but telling us that it is the DNC, the alleged protectors of secularism, who are the true followers of Christ; and that Jesus' values are identical to the DNC's.

I implore anyone, anywhere, to find an analogous leader in the Republican National Committee that has spoken so theocratically.

Right after the 2004 General Election, members of the Democratic Party were citing New Testament passages in radio and TV appearances. Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Al Sharpton, John Kerry, Jesse Jackson - each of them quoted scripture, and how that sacred writ was most obediently followed by their holy party.

Unitarians, interestingly enough, almost called for a national day of mourning after Bush won the election. In fact, the UUA president William Sinkford insisted that his fellow UUs allow themselves only eight days to mourn before getting on with life.

Locally, the Peterborough (NH) Unitarian Society posted on its wayside pulpit (the sign in front of a church) for its traditional Election Day sermon: "Post-Election Healing." That this sort of sackcloth and ashes mentality swept through the entire UUA community is indisputable, thus proving that the grief in that community was one of discovering that the UUs' hope for a liberal religious state had once again been thwarted.

Why the silence to my charges? Simple. It is politically expedient to the UUs not to draw attention to their hypocrisy. And, again, what is that hypocrisy? It is this: That the Unitarian Universalist Association and its member congregations are a Church committed to the religious ideal that religion should be separate from politics. That this irrationality is not highlighted more frequently in the media is startling and telling. It is the one of the most intellectually self-cancelling beliefs imaginable, and yet it is touted as sophisticated, nuanced and progressive.

In short, it is just plain dumb.

Contratimes