Chicago Sun-Times Warning About 'Christian Fascists'

Photo of Warner Todd Huston.

Last weekend, the Chicago Sun-Times gave nearly an entire page in their "Controversy" Section to a man who feels America is under attack by a radical, religion that is inseparable from Nazi Fascism. He feels it is a hateful religion that is out to destroy America and everything it stands for and it must be stopped at all costs.

No he did not mean Islamism, amazingly enough, but Christianity.

There are times when people find their lives empty and begin to look for a "new" way of life. Sometimes they find that life in a cult and become brainwashed converts like "Azzam The American", the recent American born al Qaeda mouthpiece, or Johnny Lindh Walker, the young enemy combatant from California who was caught fighting for al Qaeda against US forces. If one looks for something, one usually finds it. And too often when what is being looked for is found, it causes more trouble than it really is due or takes on a larger meaning than reality permits. The saying "Be careful what you wish for comes to mind.

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

But, if fear not faith, becomes the underlying mania utilized to fill an empty life, one often cannot help but see the subject of that fear everywhere, under every bed, around every corner. That demon appears, peering out of every dark closet, red-eyes glowering menacingly, the fear of it tightening the throat, strangling breath. We see this mania in rabid racists who see their most hated "others" encroaching upon them in every aspect of life, for instance.

Chris Hedges, a senior fellow at The Nation Institute, has found his fear and it seems to be controlling his every waking thought much like that of one engulfed in racist hate. He has become that frightened little boy under the covers, fearing that demon in the closet and imagining it following him everywhere. But Hedges' demon isn't one of horns and hell-fire for his demon appears in the form of Christianity.

Jesus is Hedges' boogyman.

On February 4th the Chicago Sunday Sun-Times lamentably acted as Hedges' enabler and gave him an important forum from which to reveal -- or maybe I should say revel in -- his mental distress. I hope the Times is paying for this poor man's psychology bills. (It seems, unfortunately, that the Sun-Times has not placed this piece on the Internet. It was published in a section tabbed "Controversy", page 3B.)

Titled “Beware the new American fascists”, Hedges unleashed a diatribe that is amazing for its immaturity and sad for its blindness. His target is the so-called "Christian fascists" in America, a phenomenon he seems to imagine is akin to Hitler's Third Reich in its single minded desire to remake America into an image of its own making.

But, the piece is so empty of reasoned discussion that if only the word "Christian" were replaced by "blacks", his book hawking Op Ed would be quite at home on any KKK homepage. The subtitle of the piece gives a pretty clear taste of the polemic rhetoric that is used throughout the piece: "Social despair has led tens of millions of Americans into the arms of Christian right demagogues who promise miracles and magic", it ominously warns.

Amusingly using "demagogues" in the subtitle, Hedges appears to be an expert on the concept for just about every line in his op ed is so over the top with it that it seems there won't be a chance for dispassionate debate with the man but mere demagogy throughout.

Hedges cites as his muse a leftist college professor he once had in Harvard Divinity School in the late 1970s or early 80s, a man who Hedges claimed warned him that "Christian fascists" would soon be the USA's chief enemy. This professor was obviously wide of the mark as it is Islamists, rather than Christians, that have become our most virulent religious foe as it turns out. But, it is obvious this professor, though serving as a poor prognosticator of future events, made quite an impact on an impressionable, young Hedges. Sort of like the siren song Marx offered to a young Stalin, perhaps. It's the kind of effect that the ideas of the staid academic have on the young and wild-eyed, true believer.

In any case, Hedges found religion in the claims of his professor who sonorously intoned that America was headed into a fascist state because of the "flight of manufacturing jobs, the impoverishment of the American working class, the physical obliteration of communities in the vast, soulless exburbs and decaying Rust Belt" that were "swiftly deforming our society." As he posits that totalitarian movements are built out of a "deep personal and economic despair" and he feels that "despair" is here with us now.

"This despair" will empower "dangerous dreamers" Hedges claims. "... those who today bombard the airwaves with idealistic and religious utopianism that promises, to eradicate the old, sinful world that had failed many Americans."

One of Hedges' fears is that American Christians are hoping for and trying to cause an apocalypse. He sees the rise of the politically activist Christian, starting in the 1980s, as the harbinger of this dangerous cataclysm and, even though the economy isn't at anything like the "despair" seen in 1930s Germany, he feels we have arrived at the same conditions that fostered Hitler's rise, conditions which these "Christian fascists" will swoop in and take advantage of to achieve their agenda.

Obviously, the crystal ball of Hedges' favorite professor never seemed to have worked correctly as nearly every claim Hedges presents from this man ended up being but bombast and wind. The economic "despair" we are supposed to be in is just one miss. For decades, for instance, the economy has been steadily growing and it today growing at a healthy 3.4 percent (in 2006) with the unemployment rate commonly at what was once termed "full employment" (around 5%). We have also seen the "soulless exburbs" charge perhaps abating, the fear being overplayed, as we are observing new types of social exchange developing at amazing rates on the Internet. That is a phenomenon so new we aren't even sure of its impact, but it certainly belies the claim that we are drifting completely apart. Consequently, Hedges' Nostradamous of Harvard seems more like a Nostradummy.

With his professor so often wrong, it's hard to understand why Hedges still so fondly recalls this man's blather? But, as I said, Hedges is a true believer. Facts, you see, will never get in the way of a zealot's devotion and Hedges sees only validation in his professors failed soothsaying.

So much for the tenuous economic basis for his fears. His next tact is to posit that Christians are somehow too stupid or naive to see reason and that they are too easily led by those "dangerous dreamers".

"These Christian utopians promise to replace this internal and external emptiness with a mythological world where time stops and all problems are solved. The Christian right has lured tens of millions of Americans, who rightly feel abandoned by the political system, from the reality-based world to one of magic -- to fantastic visions of angels and miracles, to a childlike belief that God has a plan for them and Jesus will guide and protect them."

Curiously, Hedges acknowledges that people are right to "feel abandoned by the political system", but he seems never to have considered just why they might be justified to feel so abandoned? He bemoans the political activism of the "Christian right" but never seems to have taken a minute to discover why they became active, when in the past they did not, in the first place?

It wasn't because these "dangerous dreamers" suddenly were formed out of whole cloth but because the left had already materially torn down the system that was America between the 1940s and the 1970s. The "Christian right" was not a creation of religious Hitlers but a response to political Marxists who had so destroyed America that many no longer recognized it as their own.

In any case, Hedges' world seems to have been born the day he met his professor and any thought to a pre-history before this time seems to have been met with a wall of indifference and deemed immaterial.

Hedges next claims that Christians want to kill everyone not of their own ilk in our current "very essence of a totalitarian state."

"It includes a dark license to kill," he ominously warns, "to obliterate all those who do not conform to this vision, from Muslims in the Middle East to those at home who refuse to submit to the movement. And it conveniently empowers a rapacious oligarchy whose god is maximum profit at the expense of citizens."

Wow. What hyperventilation. Did Hedges miss that whole business where radical Islamists had been cutting off heads and blowing up buildings since even during his professor's crystal ball gazing days in that carnival sideshow we call Harvard Divinity School?

After reading that dire assessment of the world according to Hedges, one would think Americans are being yanked from their homes left and right by this all powerful "Christian fascist" movement. But, if one could expect Hedges to name any of those "obliterated" by the Christian right -- even one person so eliminated -- one would certainly be asking too much. Broad-brush generalities are all he has to offer.

We do, indeed, have examples of such anarchic actions in this world today, but they all wear the face of the followers of Mohammed. In fact, while reading Hedges words one is consistently struck with the curious feeling that some half blind typist misread his rough draft and placed "Christian" in every place where "Islamist" originally had been.

Still, this Chicago Sun-Times op ed could easily be a one-column-fits-all screed. I mentioned that if one replaced "Christian" with "blacks" the piece would be transformed into any common KKK screed and would be an apt fit to the hate spewed by that racist organization. Similarly, one might be able to replace the "Christian" in Hedges work with the name of any targeted group; Jews, liberals, Conservatives, Frenchmen or even Cubs or Sox fans for those Chicago readers. Place any label in the place of Mr. Hedges' hated "Christians" and the piece would read no differently.

Toward the end of his article, Hedges gets to the meat of his point by equating this mythical Christian right he so fears directly to the Nazi Party of Hitler's Germany. He and his cut-rate prophet, professor see "disturbing similarities with the German Christian Church and the Nazi Party, similarities that (professor Adams) said would, in the event of prolonged social instability or a national crisis, see American fascists rise under the guise of religion to dismantle the open society. (Adams) despaired of U.S. liberals, who, he said, as in Nazi Germany, mouthed silly platitudes about dialogue and inclusiveness that made the ineffectual and impotent. Liberals, he said, did not understand the power and allure of evil or the cold reality of how the world worked. The current hand-wringing by Democrats, with many asking how they can reach out to a movement whose leaders brand them 'demonic' and 'satanic' would not have surprised Adams."

Again, all one can say at first read is, wow! Liberals impotent and ineffectual at stopping these Christians? It is liberals, rather than Christians, who are constantly using the iron boot heal of government to shut down debate under the guise of tolerance. It is Christians, not liberals, who are being systematically eliminated from the public and private sphere by government/judicial fiat sponsored by liberal activists. This is one of the reasons that Christians had finally begun to pay attention to politics and band together in associations at long last -- itself a time honored American tradition -- after nearly 200 years of not making it a focus in their lives. Liberals were mercilessly attacking them in society and they had had enough.

And, again, it is striking that Hedges doesn't see the error in his analysis. Liberals are, indeed, making themselves "ineffectual and impotent" against a forceful religious attack. And, once again, it is an attack by radical Islam, not one by radical Christianity. Those "silly platitudes about dialogue and inclusiveness" are being hailed as an answer to quell the actions of people who are actively engaged in killing Americans, not as one to answer to any Christian excess. And, I might add that no Christian group has yet announced appreciation or support of suicide bombing as an adjunct to policy. Christians have, on the other hand, only expressed and worked for a way to join the average American political process.

With all the gloom and doom, though, there was a humorous part in Hedges fantastic piece and it came next. After discussing how German Universities were co-opted by the Nazi Party and how professors came to begin their lectures with the Nazi salute, Hedges imagines a day not far off when our University professors will be co-opted by radical Christianity, forcing them to espouse the creed in class. Now there is humor. Expecting an American University professor to appreciate Christianity is too hilarious to concede. After all, if must be remembered that a professor at an American University inculcated this anti-Christian ideology of Hedges’, one that was ostensibly called a "Divinity School".

The irony is rich ... or perhaps just ridiculous.

He ends his Sun-Times advertisement for his book with one last hyperbolic claim: that Christianity is "the most dangerous mass movement in American history."

Hedges sees this all consuming Christian right in the Halls of our venerable governments and in every walk of life -- in every closet, under every bed. He sees this movement as a singular, monolithic thing, forceful as Hitler's Nazi Party ever was.

And here Hedges fails in his analogizing once again. Hitler was the evil he was because he crafted a single, all-powerful organization from among the many disparate movements of 1930's Germany. Not only did he gather the most followers, but also he and his most trusted acolytes ruthlessly eliminated the competition by murder, intimidation, and co-opting the law.

When Hedges' vaunted professor Adams was rabidly denouncing the newly involved American Christian community in matters political, Jerry Falwell's "Moral Majority" was the most visible organization of the day. Yet, since that time, Falwell has found his influence waning and, in place of the once powerful Moral Majority, a myriad of Christian organizations have grown with leaders of their own. Not one of these leaders has forcefully taken the following of any of the others nor have they forcibly absorbed another's organizations into their own. Some have grown to popularity and subsequently fallen; others continue to roll onward without any great enlargement of their flock.

And there hasn't been a single Christian assassinated by a rival organization.

Not one.

This all consuming "movement" Hedges sees is chimerical at best and pure hyperbole at worst. There is no central movement like the Nazi Party among Christian organizations today. There is no single, charismatic leader defeating and absorbing his rivals to form some monolithic, dangerous political force and there is absolutely no hint that one is on the horizon. In fact, not a single Christian organization even seems to have an operational basis for such "take overs" that a future leader could utilize to that end.

Hedges is as unbalanced in his fear mongering as he thinks these evil Christians are in their "fascism".

Yet, there is one other possibility, one other motivation for Hedges' outlandish beliefs and absurd, wild-eyed claims, and it's a possibility that would cast doubt on the very veracity of his rant.

The money.

He is, after all, selling a book. Perhaps he doesn't believe a word he is saying about all this "Christian fascist" stuff? Perhaps this is all a cynical ploy to sell enough books to retire? Maybe he is just a charlatan himself, selling snake oil and magical charms in the same way he accuses his foe of selling "myths" and religion?

Is it truly possible that Hedges is as unbalanced, as foaming at the mouth as he seems? Should we give him the benefit of the doubt and think him smarter than he appears?

I would have to say no. It would be too clever by half to assume he is nothing but a great trickster plying a well crafted plan merely to become wealthy from a book. Books, you see, are not often the path to great wealth for the writer.

It is far more likely that Hedges truly believes the crazy tale he spins and that his story is meant to convince himself as much as it is to persuade anyone else.

Sadly, Hedges truly seems to be as unbalanced as he sounds.

And, in a day when we face a clash of civilizations where Islamic extremists truly are emulating the Nazi Party -- with many of them having roots in Hitler's dark dreams -- and in a day when fear really is something to heed, Hedges misdirects it to fellow Americans instead of onto the real enemy. That makes him a zealot as well as himself a dangerous man as the net result will be to lead Americans astray from real danger to his fantasy land, boogymen.

Not to be deterred by reality, though, Hedges has been stewing about these "Christian fascists" since the early 1980s and seen them grow in his mind to psychologically disturbing proportions.

Unfortunately for Hedges, reality has overtaken his fears and proven them baseless but he is too overwrought to see it. I find myself leaving Hedges mental problems behind with one hope. And that hope is that Harvard Divinity School professor Adams has long since left the classroom and that he is no longer in a position to disturb the mental balance of any more young students as he did that of Chris Hedges.

And the Chicago Sun-Times ought to be ashamed of itself for allowing this sort of hateful propaganda appear in its pages. Would the editors of the Sun-Times have given as much space to the KKK?

Somehow I doubt it.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Undead?

He looks "undead"?

Another hater from the left g

Another hater from the left given a public forum.  That's all he is and all he's got.   

Liberalism is a convenient lie.

Did you try to find an unfl

Did you try to find an unflattering picture of Hedges or is he really such a pasty faced creepy looking guy who resembles the albino assassin from Da Vinci Code? This was the same Christ --- I mean Chris Hedges who was booed off the stage while delivering a commencement speech in Sacramento. He went into a BDS rant that had nothing to do with the prospects of college grads but a lot to do with the rancid inventory of his own mind. Ditto here. He probably get queasy at the sight of the Gideon Bible in a hotel room.

Hedges

NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal

Hedges

Hedges is a liberal fascist--the pot calling the kettle black.

NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal

I humbly suggest two words fo

I humbly suggest two words for these anti-Christian fascists:

1. CRITICAL

2. THINKING

I challenge these so-called "peace-activists" to organize JUST ONE MAJOR D.C. PROTEST AGAINST AL QUEDA by the end of 2007...

Satan's spawn.

zhombre,

As I have noted here before, if you ever have wondered what the spawn of Satan would look like, that guy is it.

And he looks that way in every photo I have had the misfortune to view.

I hate newspapermen.....I regard them as spies.....If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast. -Gen. William T. Sherman

This makes me sad since, in

This makes me sad since, in the Bible we are given the promise that, "The truth shall set you free," and I've met people of many faiths (including Islam) who live according to the commandments they have and are the happiest, nicest, most sociable people I know. And most of them are also willing to have religious discussion without contention.

While I don't look forward to it, I'm expecting to see the Pope, President Gordon B. Hinckley, any leader of a major Christian denomination in America, or even the Lord Jesus Christ on Keith Olberman's "Worst Person in the World" in the near future.

"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is to try to please everyone." - Bill Cosby

Hedges was a NY Times reporter/editor for 15 years

Last October Hedges, who served as Middle East bureau chief for the NY Times, wrote an op-ed for a far-left website. Here's his interesting view of Jewish suffering in the Holocaust. Forgive the expansive quoting, but I think you need it all for the full flavor.

"They make it easier to misread the real lesson of the Holocaust, which, as Christopher Browning illustrated in his book 'Ordinary Men,' is that the line between the victim and the victimizer is razor-thin. Most of us, as Browning correctly argues, can be seduced and manipulated into killing our neighbors. Few are immune. 

"The communists, not the Jews, were the Nazis’ first victims, and the handicapped were the first to be gassed in the German death factories. This is not to minimize the suffering of the Jews, but these victims too deserve attention. And what about Gypsies, homosexuals, prisoners of war and German political dissidents?  What, on a wider scale, about the Cambodians, the Rwandans, and the millions more who have been slaughtered by utopian idealists who believe the eradication of other human beings will cleanse the world?

"When I visited the Holocaust Museum in Washington I looked in vain for these other victims.  I did not see explained in detail the awful reality that Jewish officials in the ghettos -- Judenrat -- worked closely with the Nazis to herd their own off to the death camps. And was the happy resolution of the Holocaust, as we saw in images at the end of the exhibits, the disembarking of European Jews on the shores of Palestine? What about the Palestinians who lived in Palestine and were soon to be pushed off their land?"

Clay Waters

Director of Times Watch

The Left Behind series seems

The Left Behind series seems to be more apt every single day...

He says the American Christians are hoping for and trying to cause an apocalypse...not the radical Islamists?

Hmmmm...seems to me he is going to be left behind.

 

bt

I think this soul-less mass of barely functioning brain cells could be the precursor to the anti-christ. But that's just me.  :-O

I hate newspapermen.....I regard them as spies.....If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast. -Gen. William T. Sherman

Bigtimer, doesn't Al Gore see

Bigtimer, doesn't Al Gore seem like the perfect guy to play the role of Nick Carpethia's top priest? Everytime I see Gore talking that character comes to mind. 

CitA...Yes he does, and it ha

CitA...

Yes he does, and it has crossed my mind before...

have you seen the movies at all? I haven't and was wondering if they followed the series, I made it through four I think, I couldn't put them down after the first through third, read most of fourth, but didn't quite make the rest, although I have them..it has been awhile...lol!

Just wondering if it would be worth it to get the series in the DVD's.

Bigtimer,yes, I've seen the m

Bigtimer,

yes, I've seen the movies and they are good. Last I knew, they were only at book 3, but I haven't checked in a long time. My personal life is way too busy. I've read the entire series too. 1 - 4 are the best. The rest are good, but it does seem a bit slow, but still worth the read.

My new author to read is Ted Dekker. My wife says I need to read "Blink" I had the RED, Black, and White series on tape as I drive across the country on tour.

Hedges isn't the only one. 

Hedges isn't the only one.  If you frequent the library go to the new book section and take a look at how many "right-wing Christians are Fascist war-mongering Theocrats who are taking over the country, destroying the scientific community, and wrecking our secular form of government all while planning the death of our women folk who seek illegal abortions after Roe V Wade is overturned" books there are. 

There are at least a half a dozen of these books on the shelves at my local library.  And these are just the new ones!

I caught this guy on Colbert

I caught this guy on Colbert report last night and he's actually not as radical as this leads you to believe.  He is a christian himself but feels that people like Pat Robertson have turned christianity into a mockery and fundamentalist christians have too much power in government.  His underlying theme was that you can't spread christianity through force.

That said, personally I was raised christian but wouldn't consider myself particularly religious right now.  I have nothing against christians, my parents are awesome people.  At the same time I find myself completely disagreeing with them on the role of religion in govt.  My dad is still supportive of the Iraq war and I think it's solely because Bush mentioned God a couple times.  Therefore Bush is led by God and this war has to be justified.  This is where my dad and I start to disagree.  While I don't have the irrational fear of religion that the left does I still don't think it should be involved in public policy in any way.  My dream is to increase individual liberty in every way.  I'm for legalizing drugs, ending entitlement programs, not having to wear a seatbelt if I want, and keeping religion out of govt. 

Have some faith in your fellow man.  I believe that if people are completely free most will make the right choices.

"Have some faith in your fell

"Have some faith in your fellow man. I believe that if people are completely free most will make the right choices."

While you are sounding all "reasonable" and defending this person, it is amusing to me to note that your hero, Hedges, does NOT live by the very aphorism you just espoused!!

Hedges a Christian?

Warner, if this Hedges guy is a Christian, then keep an eye on Drudge, as I will shortly be proclaimed as Lord David, the Exalted Most-High Ruler of the Universe!

And I promise to grant NB my first exclusive interview.

Should be a hoot.  :-^)

I hate newspapermen.....I regard them as spies.....If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast. -Gen. William T. Sherman

Are you serious?  I just saw

Are you serious?  I just saw the guy for the first time last night.  He is in no way my "hero" as you say.  I have no idea what any other of his views are.  Keep on making wild assumptions though.

My dad is still supportive

My dad is still supportive of the Iraq war and I think it's solely because Bush mentioned God a couple times.

So what you think is somehow fact? Why not ask your Dad why he supports the war instead of trying to guess what he thinks?

While I don't have the irrational fear of religion that the left does I
still don't think it should be involved in public policy in any way.

Could you please point out which 'religion is involved in public policy' and which policies you are referencing. If you mean a public official saying "God bless America" (as Bush and Pelosi have, as example), this has nothing to do with policy.

D

Want your elected reps to know what you think? Go to http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/, it's real easy.

"So what you think is so

"So what you think is somehow fact? Why not ask your Dad why he supports the war instead of trying to guess what he thinks?"

Thanks for understanding my conversations with my Dad better than I do.  You are assuming that my theory of my Dad's support for the Iraq war is baseless.  You are wrong.

"Could you please point out which religion is involved in public policy"

I don't want Bush invading a country because he thinks God told him to do so.  I believe that a large number of christians want to see more God in govt.  I'm not saying that there is a lot right now.  What I want is a govt so limited that I don't have to worry about the popular religion of the day lobbying to in some way erode my liberties. 

I'd say your Father seems to

I'd say your Father seems to be thinking a bit more clearly about things because YOU seem to be just going off what others tell you. No wonder you seem to hate him.

Bush has NEVER claimed "God told him to invade Iraq". It is only your own hatred and bias that ASSumes that he did.

Stop using Rosie O'Donnell as your research source.

No wonder you seem to hate hi

No wonder you seem to hate him.

Huh, that seems to go against what I said in my first post.
"I have nothing against christians, my parents are awesome people."

It is only your own hatred and bias that ASSumes that he did.

What hatred and bias?  I happen to agree with more principles of the republican platform than the democratic one.  I didn't even say I was completely against the war.  However, reading my posts and then actually comprehending them seems to be too much work to expect from the average poster here.

I think I comprehended your post quite nicely, sphigel.

I think I comprehended your post quite nicely, sphigel.

And I think you ignored my comprehension.  You came on this site and said that Bush was told by God to go to war in Iraq.

I said that was a stupid thing to say.

Get it yet?

ACA

...

Hillary Clinton says:  "I want to take those profits."

You're kidding, right?You'r

You're kidding, right?

You're supporting your inane point with a link to a hysterically anti-American rag that employs discredited jerk Robert Fisk.

A man whose name has become both a verb and a noun in shite journalism. Imagine how bad you have to be to achieve that.

Get real, awesome boy.

"Our readers don't give a rat's ass about what you think. They want facts."

Elmore Leonard, 'The Hot Kid'.

Aw, sphigel, until you put up this link I was actually respectin

Aw, sphigel, until you put up this link I was actually respecting you.

I could just say, "You don't really believe this BS do you?"

But that wouldn't be enough.  This isn't a valid reference to anything Bush might have said, how's that?

But nice try.

ACA

...

Hillary Clinton says:  "I want to take those profits."

The article states "Pres

The article states "

President George Bush has claimed he was told by God to invade Iraq and attack Osama bin Laden's stronghold of Afghanistan as part of a divine mission to bring peace to the Middle East, security for Israel, and a state for the Palestinians.

In the programmeElusive Peace: Israel and the Arabs, which starts on Monday, the former Palestinian foreign minister Nabil Shaath says Mr Bush told him and Mahmoud Abbas, former prime minister and now Palestinian President: "I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.' And I did, and then God would tell me, 'George go and end the tyranny in Iraq,' and I did."

So it is a Palestinian foreign minister and Mahmoud Abbas who are quoted as hearing this?

Sorry - I can't beleive these two guys. Surely they wouldn't say Bush is on a mission from God to help their troops, those that follow Allah, to get more fired-up?

Got any real proof? Maybe someone domestic?

Uh -- seriously, uh dude. L

Uh -- seriously, uh dude.

Like, y'know -- anyone saying like-uh, "awesome" is on the wrong site. Y'know?

"Our readers don't give a rat's ass about what you think. They want facts."

Elmore Leonard, 'The Hot Kid'.

You said Bush went to war bec

You said Bush went to war because God told him too.

Got any proof ??????????????

Only a complete moron would believe God told Bush to go to war.

Only a complete moron would believe God told Bush to go to war.

I'm assuming you are not a complete moron.

So, I'm assuming you are simply spouting off a Leftist talking point here.

If you really want to discuss issues here on this site I'd like to see you demonstrate some original thinking or at least show some logical rationale for your repeating shallow Canards about President Bush.

Your idea of individual liberty is pretty much along the same lines as mine with the exception that I am not an anarchist.  I don't see where you are an anarchist either.  But the depth of your thinking with regard to religion, its historical influence in Western thought, the principles by which the country was created and governed; as well as religion's basic historical role in the works of man is a bit lacking, I'm afraid.

Now, riddle me this.  If a Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or Hindu decides as an American citizen they would like to have a voice in the political process; exercises the right of assembly with their fellow believers; and then uses their unity to campaign for votes; does any of that mean 'God' told them to do something?

Or are they just naturally attracted to similar value systems.

I have a problem with your value system that my value system (whichever of the above it might be) is not as valid as yours and therefore I have no right to try to exercise judgement politically based on my values.

Where do you get off saying that?  And that is what you are saying.

Aside from the brutal contradiction in outrage you show about someone interpreting your relationship with your father; I'd think twice before commiting in words the exact same idiocy in evaluating President Bush's relationship with God and whether God 'talks' to him and whether he makes decisions solely upon this silly idea.

ACA

...

Hillary Clinton says:  "I want to take those profits."

So, I'm assuming you are simp

So, I'm assuming you are simply spouting off a Leftist talking point here.

Yes, me and my crazy leftist talking points like:  "What I want is a govt so limited that I don't have to worry about the popular religion of the day lobbying to in some way erode my liberties."

I mean, we all know the democrats want to severely hamper the power of government right.  (i hope to god you know i'm being sarcastic here, although i do wonder)

Maybe if you would actually read my posts and not give knee jerk reactions to one line out of my entire post you would get a better idea where I'm coming from.

OK sphigle, let's deal with you correctly.

OK sphigle, let's deal with you correctly.

sphigle says:  Maybe if you would actually read my posts and not give knee jerk reactions to one line out of my entire post you would get a better idea where I'm coming from.

Here's the history from your own post: 

Warner:  "Could you please point out which religion is involved in public policy"

sphigle:  "I don't want Bush invading a country because he thinks God told him to do so.  I believe that a large number of christians want to see more God in govt.  I'm not saying that there is a lot right now.  What I want is a govt so limited that I don't have to worry about the popular religion of the day lobbying to in some way erode my liberties."

ACA says:  "I have a problem with your value system that my value system (whichever of the above it might be) is not as valid as yours and therefore I have no right to try to exercise judgement politically based on my values.

Where do you get off saying that?  And that is what you are saying."

And your point would be that I can't read?  No, your point would be that if you straddle a barbed wire fence you won't get hung.

You are basically saying that religious people have no right to express their value systems in politics.  ("What I want is a govt so limited that I don't have to worry about the popular religion of the day lobbying to in some way erode my liberties")

That is more inanity.  Bush isn't listening to God to erode any of your liberties.  Further, the war on terror isn't being fought to erode any of your liberties.  And when you conflate the silly idea that Bush went to War in Iraq because God told him so ("I don't want Bush invading a country because he thinks God told him to do so.) with the popular religion of the day lobbying to in some way erode your liberties, that is stupid.

ACA

...

Hillary Clinton says:  "I want to take those profits."

You are basically saying that

You are basically saying that religious people have no right to express their value systems in politics.  ("What I want is a govt so limited that I don't have to worry about the popular religion of the day lobbying to in some way erode my liberties")

It may have come across that way but I didn't mean that.  Of course they have that right, that's what voting is all about.  However, I beleive the core functions of government are defense and criminal prosecution.  I would favor seeing the role of govt reduced so greatly that no special interest group could garnor enough control to impede anyone's liberties.  I wasn't trying to say that religious groups are more likely to do this than any other special interest group.  I was simply trying to point out that religious groups aren't immune to granting government greater power if they feel it serves their own interests. 

Govt can only give to one group by taking away from another therefore any move to increase govt power outside of its core functions is a violation of my individual liberty and therefore I do not support that. 

As to my link to the Independent, I found it using google and had no idea what kind of a site it was.  I don't eat, sleep and breathe this stuff like you guys. 

OK sphigel, I'll go with your flow on this a little bit.

OK sphigel, I'll go with your flow on this a little bit.

The disconnect is that this thread is about religion and politics.  People are religous, not governments.  People in the United States compose its government.  That is why I disagree with your assumption.

I declare your base assumption invalid.  Further, I would argue that government only has that power which is ceded to it by the people, no greater country than the United States has this precept as its founding principle.

So, although I can understand your disdain of 'religion' influencing government in the basest sense, I cannot understand how you could possible come to the conclusion that this is not a valid result of government by the people.

ACA

...

Hillary Clinton says:  "I want to take those profits."

Further, I would argue that g

Further, I would argue that government only has that power which is ceded to it by the people

Actually the govt attains power granted to it by a simple majority of the people.  Theres a big difference.  My whole point is that people are willing(even religious groups) to hand over power to govt when they are in the majority but what happens when you're in the minority.  We don't live in a democracy we live in a republic.  I for one don't want to live in a mob rule society.  There needs to be laws on the books clearly defining govt's scope of power.  I for one don't think anyone should be able to influence govt to tax me more because they want to force everyone to follow the path of a simple majority.

Ah, so you are really more of a Libertarian than a Conservative.

Ah, so you are really more of a Libertarian than a Conservative.  It's a bit of a cheap label and probably doesn't fit like a glove.

I detect a note of wistfulness here.  You have lost any faith in the checks and balances of our government.  That would be understandable to me.  But, unlike you I am old enough to see the ebb and flow of power through the government over time.

Handing over power to the government is a function of our elected representatives.  They are the ones who cede in our names, power to the Federal Government.  Who is to say that any individual state would not experience the 'handing' over of the same if not more power should we return to a strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution.  At that point I suppose we would simply have no complaint, huh?

We can influence our government to the best of our ability by participating in the political process.  It is this rule that caused so-called Christians to form wht is now referred to by the Liberal Left as 'far-right Conservative Christian groups'.  I think this politicization of Christianity has produced some negatives for Christianity, but then again, I'm not a Christian myself so I'm not really involved in that disccussion except where it affects freedom of Religion.

Now, as far as you not thinking anyone should be able to influence government to tax you more because they want to force everyone to follow the path of a simple majority, then you have stumbled upon the great War of the Century.

That would be the war of the people to maintain a free society with a government that reduced greatly its influence on free markets.  Free Markets make for Free Men.  Free Men cannot survive without free markets.

So, get involved and work to change the composition of the Federal Government House and Senate (if you want to wallow around on the fringes and work with the Libertarians, we have a few on this site).  But, I would advise you to do two things here.

First, read what you cite as backup for your ideas first - as in the Independent Article, that will save you a lot of grief; second, shy away from inanities.

That will get you smashed to the wall as I have demonstrated.

ACA

...

Hillary Clinton says:  "I want to take those profits."

Ignore the partisan Liberta

Ignore the partisan Libertarians, concentrate instead -- especially for purposes of this site -- on asking yourself why the entire TV news media apparently so-wants Rep. Ron "The Invisible Candidate" Paul out of the upcoming "debate," yet so-wants Dennis "Constant Coverage" Kucinich in?? This despite both candidates' equal status as one of 435 Representatives and further despite both candidates having admittedly low chances at nomination for their respective parties. Let's decapitalize libertarian here since Dr. Paul's "sin" of running for President as one is almost 2 decades old, and carefully ask yourself: Has sarcasmo just made an open & shut case -- at least as far as TV's concerned -- for antilibertarian mediabias, albeit in this case the medibias is practiced against a titular Republican?? Why, it's almost as if a variety of very powerful people in big-government-loving news-corporations don't seem to want certain ideas out-there at-all, no???

JMR

I absolutely knew you would show up.

I absolutely knew you would show up.

Here I go getting you a recruit and you jump in and change the subject.  Oh well...

Wouldn't you do better posting to sphigel?

Oh sphigel... Meet Sarc... He's our resident Libertarian.

ACA

...

Hillary Clinton says:  "I want to take those profits."

I don't want a "recrui

I don't want a "recruit." I want the news media to be "fair & balanced" toward all political candidates regardless of political ideology, but clearly that's not-happening due to mediabias. And I want people here to notice the real nature of the most-blatant form of mediabias I see these days. (Please note, I'm trying to help a Republican Presidential candidate, even if he was guilty of that unpardonable presidential-sin decades ago.) Please, could everyone watching TV news notice any mention during the next week or so of Dr. Paul and compare those TV mentions to those garnered by Dennis Kucinich, just-for-me? I strongly suspect you'll see few-but-some mentions of Dennis and zero mentions of Dr. Paul in this informal experiment, because that's sure as hell what I've seen out of all the news media over the past month...
JMR

"I don't eat sleep and b

"I don't eat sleep and breathe this stuff..."

If you can't run with the big dogs then stay on the porch and bark at the mailman :-)

It's very clear about these p

It's very clear about these people that CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIANS ARE NOT WELCOME TO PARTICIPATE IN THEIR SO-CALLED "DIVERSE" AND "TOLERANT" BRAND OF "DEMOCRACY..."

...pretty damn fascist of them...

Show me the quote where it sa

Show me the quote where it says President Bush said God told him to resume the hostilities with Iraq. 

Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark. -- save my gun, shoot a liberal.

I'll bet the terrorists have

I'll bet the terrorists have no problem claiming that Allah told them to go on a jihad. 

I'll take my God over theirs any day.

I run into these Christian-haters all the time on other forums.  They are always making fun of the Ted Haggards and Jimmy Swaggarts of the world and using guilt by association to take cheap shots at Christians.  I am quick to point out their hatred and they usually get very nasty and attack me personally.

Allah told them

Fossten- "Allah told them to go on a jihad."  Yup in fact here's the Tarheel Jihadist (remember him?) who wrote 6 pages worth of justification.

Letters from a mujahid.

At this point sphigel, I feel like you are a total waste of time

At this point sphigel, I feel like you are a total waste of time.

But, I'll try once more.

Do you understand hearsay testimony?

I'll break it down for you.  Hearsay testimoney is where a third party claims that a primary party in a dispute said something to them or that they overheard them say something that cannot be verified by independent sources.

For example, you are charged with deliberately misleading people on a Web site as to your political beliefs and we are in court.  I bring in twenty people you have never seen before in your life and they claim you told one of their friends something about how you were going to do that.  There is no official record of their claims, they just say it.

There claims are not admitted in court because it is hearsay.  No official direct record of their connection to the cartoon.  That is what is going on in this article you posted.  Two guys who are not credible come into court and claim that Bush said...

Pretty much sums it up.  It doesn't work.  It is spurious.  It is silly. If you want to be taken more seriously then you need original source documents, like a letter, a speech or a response to a public queston by a (dare I say it) accredited journalist.

ACA

...

Hillary Clinton says:  "I want to take those profits."

sphigel- Please try to pay at

sphigel- Please try to pay attention. Bush isn't trying to cause global destruction to bring the little boy out of the well.

The Roll of The Hidden Imam in the history and the politics of Iran.

I imagine you did not read or

I imagine you did not read or study the Bible much as you would have remembered the scripture that tells us we will know them by their fruits.  If he is a Christian it is a secular Christian where you really dont believe what is written in the Bible or study it, you just believe parts taht you ahve heard and it seems like a good idea to you.

Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark. -- save my gun, shoot a liberal.

SP - huh?  "Fundamental

SP - huh?  "Fundamentalist Christians have too much power in government?"  Please elaborate.

sphigel - did ya ever consider...

sphigel - did ya ever consider...that maybe dear ol Dad has pretty much the same belief as you do ?

How so you probably wonder, after you vociferously deny such a thing as a possibility.

Well, it's really quite simple. He wants religion out of government as well, the enemies government, that run whole nations on Islamic religious hardcore doctrine.

 One has to wonder, if you areso against the USA's "religious government", why you never seem, in your statement, to connect Islam and the foreign governments that no doubt, are ten times worse than "Bush' religious zealoutry"...

 Gosh, I wish just once someone who said what you did would answer that for me. Just once, without being a pigheaded moron.

Warner, I think you missed the mark on this one, pretty much.

Warner, I think you missed the mark on this one, pretty much.

This isn't a book about Christian Bashing as much as it is a book about Marxism.  I see the Professor as just being another Marxist using the old adage "Religion is the opiate of the masses."  Christians happen to be the backbone religion in America and so that is the one this idiot, Hedges, has chosen to highlight.

The Hitler reference by Hedges is totally wrong, but right if seen in the light of the Nazis' rise to power.  Lest we forget, Germany in the late 1920's was a hodgepodge of political movements.  The three powerful ones were the Nationalist Socialists (pretty much a party based on bringing Germany back from WWI and the domination of Europe through its exploitation of hate); the Communists which were backed by Stalin; and the Royalists or Kaiser group that wanted a return to monarchy.

Hitler was first and foremost against the Communists as they posed the greatest threat against his movement.  The Communists had weapons, men and a worker's ideology that exploited the high unemployment that hit Germany in 1928-29.  He attacked the Communists first and foremost because he knew that the Royalists had no future in Germany due to the Kaiser's loss in WWI.

Thus, the communists hated Hitler with a passion but paradoxically were also in need of Germany's tank building knowledge and tactical military strategies.  So, Stalin let Hitler and his ilk play in his backyard never thinking that Germany would ever be a real menance to him.

So, I see this guy Hedges in the terms of the old style Communist who attacks Christianity because this detracts from the weakening of US power in its war against terror so as to prevent honest discussions about the religious nature of the War.  He is obviously thinking of Hitler because of his silly reference to:

"...because of the "flight of manufacturing jobs, the impoverishment of the American working class, the physical obliteration of communities in the vast, soulless exburbs and decaying Rust Belt" that were "swiftly deforming our society."

Now this is pretty clear to me that he has an economic view that is unrealistic with modern times.  Maybe this is what the triggered my view that this is just another communist blathering on about how the US is headed toward fascism rather than the communist ideal he'd rather see.

ACA

...

Hillary Clinton says:  "I want to take those profits."

He's right of course, only c

He's right of course, only christian "cultists" could have written something like this -

 "When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V

And I'm not hearing a peep

And I'm not hearing a peep about islamofascists. Clearly they're the more dangerous group, yet the (P)MSM refuses to call them that, merely that they're misunderstood and can be convinced with therapy -paid for by our taxdollars- that they should stop it (similar to a wag of the finger, which ain't gonna do much in the long run).

Wasn't it Mr. Murtha who said in an op-ed that he disliked people that called Democrats names, namely "cut and run?" Democrats do the name calling 10 times to our 1, and yet they come across as the damaged, hurting souls that are being repressed.

Shut the hell up, it saves the environment.

"Go into all nations and

"Go into all nations and preach the gospel." - Jesus

"Therefore, when ye meet the unbelievers, smite at their necks, at length when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly on them"  - Muhammed

So, who are the fascists again? 

I'd prefer not to invoke Go

I'd prefer not to invoke Godwin's Law and call people fascists, but I'll say this....Control-freaks of various religions seem to have something in common, and despite "mainstream" media commentary studiously-ignoring the issue, it might have cost Republicans political power last election. They deserved to lose on that issue, too...
JMR

Control freaks of various rel

Control freaks of various religions, cults, philosophies etc....  The key element is the 'control freaks' part, not  the 'religions' par