Faith War part 2

I mentioned below that only one side knows it is fighting. Let me explain. The right wing extremists who make statements like, "people of faith are embroiled in a "war" against secular humanists who threaten to divorce America from its religious roots" despite the mounting evidence to the contrary, are clearly banging their war drums and rallying their troops. But then again, religious zealots are good at this type of behavior. Look at history--from the crusades to present times. It defines them. It's what they do.

On the other side are the mainstream, normal people ("normal" in the main portion of the "normal curve" sense, not necessarily in a mental health sense). This portion of the American public is simply too busy going about there normal routines to notice or feel compelled to action. Most of them do not apparently need a rallying call to arms, a reason to feel threatened, a reason to get involved in the debate (or "war" in the other, peace-loving side's terminology). As an aside, has it ever occurred to you how much war is waged under the pretense of peaceful religion? Getting back to the topic at hand, most of the normal, mainstream side simply do not let things get them riled. This can be good or bad depending on the degree on complacency. I would call the majority of this side under-reactionary and the majority of the right-wing side over-reactionary. Now the problem is that there is a small segment that is sometimes referred to as "secular" (as if that's a curse word) that is indeed reactionary and controversial in their own right. However, the bulk of this side--on which I am included--are not "secular" necessarily, but simply are defined as such because we are not zealots or because we believe in a strong division between church and state.

What is needed is for the normal, mainstream folks to get more involved, become more active in their voice and actions--although, admittedly this, by definition, goes against their nature. So, for those of us who have a bit of reactionary-ism in us, it is up to us to speak up! Exercise your rights through the voting process. Engage in on-and off-line discussion groups. Donate to causes that will help balance out the extremists. Thankfully, some republicans are beginning to divorce themselves of Bush's extreme conservativism; now that a presidential re-election is no longer an issue but their own political lives are at stake they have to be more cautious. However, it still looks like the definite party of moderation (in most aspects) will continue to be the democrats. There are other, less political, groups too that endorse moderation and I encourage you to look toward them as well for direction and activism.

Stay tuned for long-awaited, voice of reason, political platform pieces in future posts from the Ordinary Netizen.

Faith War?
Saw this article in today's L.A. Times:

Just days after a bitterly divided Senate committee voted along party lines to
approve her nomination as a federal appellate court judge, California Supreme
Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown told an audience Sunday that people of faith
were embroiled in a "war" against secular humanists who threatened to divorce
America from its religious roots, according to a newspaper account of the
speech. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-brown26apr26,0,6225135.story?coll=la-home-headlines

Well folks, it's time for the Ordinary Netizen to provide a voice of reason.
Consider the recent but building events of our times. When the Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) ponders changing the chamber's rules to prevent the minority party (any minor party, regardless if it happens to be Democrat or Republican) from employing the last ditch measure, a procedural move to block confirmation of convervative jurists. When a conservative president has won his second term, not in small part due to the swell of evangelical Christian votes. When the U.S. Senate and House seats are in the conservative majority. When the U.S. Supreme Court is unbalanced--heavier on the conservative side of the scale. When the president has openly declared that--due to religious convictions--people who are gay shouldn't be allow the same rights as others. When that same president is aggressively pushing government funding of faith-based initiatives....

At such a time in our history it is incredible to see such rhetoric by a federal judge. From a psychological point of view, it sounds darn right delusional or paranoid. In our life time there has never been a period of such religious fervor in this country. I'm not saying that religion is bad--nothing of the sort--just that it doesn't mix with government. Of course, whenever any extremist faction is considered there will always be distortion of reality. By definition this is true. No person, in their right (correct) mind, could view the swing toward more faith-based governance in the recent years as any type of secular humanist threat to divorce America from its religious roots.

What we have here is an ominous precursor to a theocracy. You wouldn't think it would take a great student of history to see the signs, recognize the hypocrisy (as we certainly do our best to disrupt theocracies of other religions in the world), take lessons from the damage that has been wrought by such governments and to understand the dangers of turning our country in that direction.

There may in fact be a "faith war" going on. But only one side knows it's fighting! The other side better wake up.