I don't swallow all your assumptions and conclusions, Mr. Letter Writer, but what you are discussing is why there needs to be a clear separation of Church and State.

We are in an era (rear Error) where religion is being used to obtain and justify political power.

Some have likened it to the strategy the Taliban use - but they are fiercly shouted down. Clearly they are overstating the current state of the sistation, and they are off the bullseye, but they are equally clearly pointing at the target.

The divisive issues of today: Gay rights (use to be Indian then Black or Irish, etc.), Stem Cell Research and it's cousin Abortion, and all the others, are rooted in popular religious interpretations, and have been framed by charismatics as traditional American Values.

Political parties give lip service and public funding to religions organizations, guised as charitable vouchers, in exchange for support from the pulpit.

The sister movement is corporate organizations given access to write laws and public funding in exchange for and to offset the funding of elections.

While both parties are guilty of it, the Religious Right, and the "Conservative" Grand Ole Party of business both the history and the rhetoric to take much better advantage of the strategy.

The bitch is, the strategy working, but it is not good for America.

Don't forget the murder of millions of innocents via the "Christian" politicians who support abortion as well as the those public officials who are adulterers as well as thieves of the public money. Also those "Christian" politicians who bear false witness against other politicians for their party's gain.

Great letter, Fred. We are in a time where Christians are being used by the extreme right in order to put forward an agenda which aids the rich and powerful (as opposed to those whom Jesus ministry was focused).

Issues such as abortion and gay marriage are just a smoke screen diverting our attention while big corporations make more and more money and gain more and more power over the American worker.

Years ago, in my small town, union meetings to help textile workers where held in the local Pentecostal church. Then, churches would heed the words of Jesus regarding the poor and oppressed. Then, the race card was played and thus the working class, the poor, etc. were divided because of racism. Same thing is happening today.

Abortion is a big issue. But pro-life does not stop at birth. The extremists today want to cut all kind of social programs aimed at providing for children. Now I know that parents are suppose to provide for their children, but the reality is that they don't always do so for a variety of reasons.

The really great thing is that people of faith are waking up. On the evangelical side, you have people like Jim Wallis, Tony Compolo and Ron Sider calling for a reevaluation of "modern" Christian mores (yes, they do change contrary to the fundamentalist American Taliban). Other voices are being heard from the National Council of Churches and the Roman Catholic Church (recent letters to congress on funding of social programs).

Let's pray that this nationalistic "Christianity" that has been pushed on us will be exposed and that real Christian principals will once again be the norm.

"Good Christian men do not lie, they do not kill, and they do not bear false witness."...........

as long as there is flesh on our bones and our feet are planted on earth, even good Christians ( and i often wonder what the definition of good/bad Christians is ? to my way of thinking, even a bad Christian has great advantages over a really great non Christian...according to the scriptures ) are subject to error. i do not advocate or believe this to be an excuse, i do believe it is a fact. what good comes from denigrating the president ( even if he has or may have done the things cited )? He is gonna be there until his term ends...while you may not be able to support him as president, we should be able to pray for the man ( the old hate the sin and love the sinner deal ). personally i can pray for bush but not like the manner in which he runs the country. maranatha !

"The extremists today want to cut all kind of social programs aimed at providing for children."

Could you please define what an "extremist" is as you see it? Also, provide factual proof as to the exact myriad of programs these so called "extremists" want to cut?

Otherwise it's classic fearmongering like decades of threatening seniors that Republicans are going to do away with their social security.

"Issues such as abortion and gay marriage are just a smoke screen diverting our attention while big corporations make more and more money and gain more and more power over the American worker."

What does abortion and gay marriage have to do with corporations making money? How are they gaining power over the American worker? Are they inslaving American workers?

Did it ever occur to you that some people, not just Christians, have deep religious beliefs and think abortion and gay marriage are wrong? Does that make them extremists?

I find the denigration of any persons religion a most reprehensible attitude. Furthermore, assigning your own reasons to the motivations of others is narrow-minded and nearsighted. Tying everthing you believe to be wrong to the coattails of one religion or party or the other is among the most head-in-the-sand approaches imaginable.

I resent the constant harangue about Christians while assigning your own attitude to what a Christian is. I don't care what denomination you belong to as long as you leave me free to believe as I wish without pinning a label on me.

Spend more time thinking about issues and ideas instead of reacting with nothing but rage and emotion.

We are in deep trouble if the thinking expressed in this blog is "progressive."

Good post Cutawad. Just because someone does not adhere to the "progressive" message (for religious reasons or otherwise) they are labelled as an extremist.

I guess I'm an extremist because I do not favor abortion or gay marriage. All this time I thought I was just a regular guy raising my kids with mine & my wifes moral values.

If abortion and gay rights are just smoke screens, then the democrats should be completely willing to overturn Roe V Wade and give up trying to attain gay rights. That should remove the Republican's ability to use this as a smoke screen in the future, right?

Seriously, though. Anyone who feels it is okay to demonize people who don't agree with them or refer to over 50% of voters as sheep just completely loses any respect from most of us.

I would guess that most of the voters voted their heart and their conscience. As is often the case, they probably tried to pick the lesser of two evils. Most of those who voted for Bush don't have a love affair with the man, but felt he was a better choice than Kerry.

Extremists are the people who write these letters that believe anyone who doesn't support what they support is evil and stupid.

I don't think people considered others extremists for simply holding values - deeply seated or shallow and cavalier - the label is appropriately applied when one uses force or absolutist rhetoric to impress his / her values upon another - mutating values into morals.

For example - Hugh talks about the murder of innocents. It is true that a surprisingly large number of pregnancies are terminated (I've not found out the reason for this, and have a hard time believing most are sex crazed perverts that get pregnant every month and then get a routine D&C using welfare monies):

- most would agree it is wrong to doing so in the 39th week - the vision created by the extremists rhetoric "sucking a baby down the sink".

- most would agree it's OK to use an IUD, even through a pregnancy is terminated by being flushed down a toilet during a normal void.

- most would agree the best solution is somewhere in the middle, yet most are extremists on this matter, arguing vehemently either for personal choice or anti personal choice. Some get crazed enough to shoot other people over it.

- most will vote for a politician that takes an absolute position on this matter, regardless of his other positions or actions.
--- Ted Kennedy get re-elected over and over because he is very pro-personal choice, even though he is a blowhard.
-- Tom Delay will get re-elected again - after he get out of jail - because he is very anti-personal choice, even though he is an equally big blowhard.

Dan...here is a link that talks about the cuts for the poor and the reaction from the Roman Catholic Church and the National Council of Churches:
http://www.ncccusa.org/news/051103Hastert.html

Note this quote from the article: "Nearly 300,000 people in low-income working families will lose Food Stamp assistance if this bill becomes law and some 40,000 children in those families will no longer be eligible for free school meals. "

I can point you to other resources on the web about these cuts if you are still interested.

EXTREMIST: Those who claim to follow Jesus who will do anything to impose thier version of Christianity on our government and other governments. That includes misstating facts to fit their idyllic (or ideological) view of the U.S. as founded on Christian principles.

Abortion and gay marriage are smoke screens to divert the attention of Americans so that questioning of the war and other Bush policies are not questioned (well, until now). The neoCONs are using people of faith to further an agenda that is out of line with the teachings of Jesus regarding how the poor are to be treated and the Christian view of peace.

Don't get me wrong, thank goodness we have free speech in America and extremists are free to have their say, but no longer can they claim that their version of Christianity is THE version. Again, evangelical Christians like Tony Compolo, Ron Sider and Jim Wallis (www.sojo.net) are bringing to the forefront how nationalistic "Christianity" has wrongly passed as THE Christianity Jesus taught.

And the good news, Dan, is that there more and more voices speaking up against extreme fundamentalism and letting folks know that God is not a right wing Republican (nor is God a Democrat, by the way). Take heart, Dan, the Republican party that I knew as a child, the party of Eisenhower, Ford and McCain is going to come back and the "fearmongering" that you speak of (terror alert RED...ORANGE..YELLOW...fear, fear, fear...Bird flu...fear, fear, fear...etc.) will be put to bed. By the way, seen the new Republican neoCON memo which says that a new terrorist attack on US soil could "reverse the sagging fortunes of the President..." Rich, really rich! Would you like that link?

" the teachings of Jesus regarding how the poor are to be treated and the Christian view of peace. "
...............................
i would be interested in your view point on your comment above regarding how to treat the poor. while i certainly believe that Jesus taught us to feed and clothe the hungry and naked, i do not believe that is an unqualified statement. if a person chooses to be poor and chooses not to work and to be lazy, are we then still encouraged to feed that person.....not according to paul's teaching in thessalonians, he actually encourages us to stay away from such people. i believe there is a fundamental difference between helping someone and enabling someone.

EXTREMIST: Those who claim to follow Allah who will do anything to impose their version of Islam on the world. That includes suicide bombings which kill (in addition to infidels) fellow Muslims including women and children (just happened yesterday in Jordan), destroying private and public property and inciting riots (a nightly occurance in France), flying airplanes into buildings, videotaped beheadings broadcast on the Internet, & declaring jihad on anyone who does not subscribe to their idyllic (or ideological) view of the world as founded in the Qur'an.

That is my definition of extremist. You may call Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell extremists, but I don't see them doing any of the above. (yeah yeah Robertson said something stupid about Chavez, big deal.)

Hey maybe the Democratic party of FDR, Truman, and JFK will come back some day. These guys understood the enemies of their time. The Democratic leaders today are clueless to the threat of Islamic terrorism and domination.

As for spending cuts, most "cuts" are usually not cuts, rather a decrease in the usual increase. Many including myself criticize Bush & congress for excessive spending. I hear relentless criticism from the Dems about deficits (only when a Rebuplican is in office). Now the govt wants to cuts spending and it's an outrage!! I'm not saying I agree with ALL spending cuts, but by golly we need some. I would have to research the exact cuts proposed but don't have the time at the moment.

I wouldn't blame Bush for bird flu, the media are the ones that play that up. But of course every ill in the world is the fault of America and those eeeevill Republicans.

Hey Dan...I agree with your view of extremist. But extremism is not limited to Islam. Check out the theonomists within Christianity. And I do believe it was a big deal when Robertson called for the assination of Chavez. That is no different than what the radical Moslem clerics do. I would also agree with you that the Democrats (and many Republicans) have no idea the danger that Islamic fundamentalism poses for our world. But that is fundamentalism in general be it Islamic, Jewish, Christian, whatever.

And, Dan, the "evil Republicans" are not at fault for everything. It just seems odd that the day after Libby's idictment, Bush started on the Bird-flu scare speech. There are PLENTY of Republicans that are not caught up in this dishonest administration. One is my hero, John McCain. There are many others who are just now beginning to challenge Bush on his "agenda". Most see how he is taking the Republican party down a path that is destructive, not only for the party, but for America as well.

Any deficit is bad, be it under a Democratic or Republican adminstration. So, I think your accusation is a generalization. Besides, this deficit is higher than it has ever been. Higher than all the deficits combined in former administrations.

And about JFK and FDR coming back...that would be great! Truman...well, I disaree with you on this one...lol. What I'd rather see is a good ole' Eisenhower! Now that was a president!

Buz, while I would like to say that Jesus qualified what he said we should do to help the poor, he didn't. I think Jesus' teachings supercede Pauls. Every word in the Bible must be filtered through the teachings of Jesus, after all that's who we follow, right? As for the verses you refer to in Thessalonians, I understand where you are coming from regarding enabling. However, many Christians I know use that verse to brush aside ANY help for the poor. Perhaps we should take literally what Jesus said, "sell all you have and give to the poor." I'm not there yet. But I do believe what He said to be Truth.

My definition of an extremist: Ragheads who saw the head off of a bound man.

Liberal definition of an extremist: Republicans who win the majority of the vote.

Dan:

I'm not diss'in (don't be hating!) - but thought I'd play devils advocate:

EXTREMIST: Those who claim to follow a certain religion and who will do anything to impose their version on the world. That includes sending fellow believers to their grave and taking or destoying private or public property as needed to promote the cause. It includes assaulting anyone who does not subscribe to their idyllic view of the world.

This is consistant with Dan's definintion, but also includes fundamentalist of all strips, or "theonomists" (new word for me - what's it mean?)

exian, some of you guys are still clueless as to what we face in the future with terrorism. I'd rather Pat Robertson call me a heathen anyday over some Islamofacist sawing off my head.

I post this often, but please read this book, it is very enlightening: (I'm almost done with it).

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0895260131/002-3060310-7020816?v=glance&n=283155&v=glance

Too many Christians in America have whored themselves to either party for sake of worldly power. The Christians who whore to Bush are just the most recent. And the most despicable in my estimation. The man is completely counter of everything that it means to be a humble servant of Christ. Yet too many "Christians" would fall at his feet because he's deluded them into believing he is some kind of macho cowboy who *says* he is a Christian. You tell me: would a real Christian approve of the kind of lowbrow tactics employed by Karl Rove? Would a real Christian lie his way into a war that is fought by others, not himself? Would a real Christian be so wasteful with what is entrusted to him, as Bush is with our money? Would a real Christian be so arrogant and despising of his fellow man?

For crying out loud, some of you "Christians" believe the man is completely redeemable because he is a REPUBLICAN...?!?

These "neo-conservatives" who have used the name of God to worm their way into the destruction of this country are the lowest form of public life. They shield themselves from the consequences that the wreck upon others, and will boldly proclaim that they have the anointing of Christ upon them as they do it. History will judge them to be fools, and will judge those who empowered them as blithering, spineless idiots. Ten years from now, none of those who claim to support Bush now will be so proud to admit it then.

And those who are content to serve Christ in sincere humility will have been proven to be the more wiser.

Knightshift:

You ask "... would a real Christian ...", here're my opinions:

" ... would a real Christian approve of the kind of lowbrow tactics employed by Karl Rove?"

I think GWB is clueless. Karl does things behind George's back, and Karl is so enamoured with George, he will do anything to elevate the man.

"... would a real Christian lie his way into a war that is fought by others, not himself?"

That's two questions. First, GWB is clueless but has Dick to take care of matters of the state. Dick does things behind George's back, and Dick is so enamoured with Dick he will do anything to elevate himself. Second, it's kind of a modern day trend, let the little people do your dirty work.

"Would a real Christian be so wasteful with what is entrusted to him, as Bush is with our money?"

That's a little harder - it may be as a silver spooned man whom Daddy's friends have been bailed out of several failed businesses, it's probable he really doesn't know the value of a buck, although he's constantly imploring us to know the value of hard work.

"Would a real Christian be so arrogant and despising of his fellow man?"

I don't think that's fair nor accurate.

"For crying out loud, some of you "Christians" believe the man is completely redeemable because he is a REPUBLICAN...?!?"

Well the blessing and curse of being a Christian is you can do anything and still be absolved by The Man.

"Too many Christians in America have whored themselves to either party for sake of worldly power."

Take out the word "Christian" and I'll accept the statement.

"The man is completely counter of everything that it means to be a humble servant of Christ."

Again, we must disagree. Clueless? Yes. Too trusting? Yes. A bit macho? Sure. A Reborn Christian? Absolutely.

But we totally agree many we now call "neo-conservatives [use] the name of God to worm their way into the destruction of this country ... shield themselves from the consequences .. boldly proclaim that they have the anointing of Christ..."

Dan,

Regarding the book you reference, let me say first that I haven't read it. I do find it interesting that 2 of the 6 reviews posted on the Amazon page for the book say the following:

"As I read through the book, it became clear that this was much more of an opinion piece (someone's opinion) than an academic book of fact. Through-out the book there were extreme emotional opinions such as "he lied", "his insatiable lusts", "licentiousness, cruelty, and ruthless ambition", "much-ballyhooed (and grossly exaggerated)". Much of the content (as exemplified by these 'extreme' words appears to be written by someone with hatred toward Islam. This book therefore, appears to be nothing more than propaganda against Islam."

"If you are an ignorant bigot and subscribe to the teachings of Pat Robertson or Richard Perle then you will enjoy this book. It is a book about Muslims as the Protocals of Zion is a book about Jews. A disgrace to literature."

I haven't decided whether or not I will look into it further.

On further reflection maybe I will give it a read. I'd rather base my opinion on my own observations, rather than hearsay. And, I find it useful to explore opposing viewpoints. As I have read "Imperial Hubris" and plan to read the forthcoming book by the Duke author, it only seems fair.

Let me know what you think after you read it Astro Boy. I looked at the 10 reviews on the first Amazon page. Of them 4 were negative against the book. When you look at the 6 positive reviews, an overwhelming number of people thought these reviews were helpful as compared to the negative reviews.

When the author names the book "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam" you know what you are getting into. There is another one: "The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History". I'm going to read that one next.

James D. Rockefeller,

Bush does not act like a Christian at all. As callous as he is with the lives of others, I cannot see how it could be that he holds the lives of others as precious and sacred. Not when he throws them away for reasons so dubious and ill-defined, if not non-existent.

The only reason he is president now is because he was CHOSEN to win the office by the powers that be. And too many "Christians" jumped through that hoop on command, that they HAD to vote for him.

I don't see how you CAN't put "Christians" and "whores" together in this situation.

Glad we agree on neo-conservatives though. I never thought this could be said of any political movement in American history, but theirs is a disease that should be cut out thoroughly. What else can be said of a political idealism that believes it's a virtue to lie to the people?

I think Pat Robertson has done many great things as a Christian and I would shudder to think how my accomplishments would be compared to his on judgement day.

I don't subscribe to the teachings of Pat Robertson. I subscribe to the teachings of the Bible. Pat Robertson has made it his life, career, and mission to proclaim the gospel to people around the world. Can you claim as much?

Yes, I think his comments about Chavez were out of hand. But I also think you don't disregard a lifetime of service based on one comment. Have you ever said something mean or stupid?

I know I have.

"I think Pat Robertson has done many great things as a Christian..."

Name some, please.

Pat Robertson is a foolish little man. And one of the biggest "Christian" whores (as I mentioned earlier) that there has ever been. He sold out a long time ago. The only appreciation he has for Christ is how much power - and how many gullible people - he can get from using the name.

He's also a false prophet, given how many times he's predicted something in the name of God and then been proven wrong. Maybe we should do to him as they did in the Old Testament, and take him outside the city and stone him to death.

" Buz, while I would like to say that Jesus qualified what he said we should do to help the poor, he didn't. I think Jesus' teachings supercede Pauls. Every word in the Bible must be filtered through the teachings of Jesus "......................

i believe if you were to study the word "poor" used in almost every instance in the N.T. - you may come away with a different understanding of what Jesus meant. also is it posssible that paul was building upon Jesus's word ? what pauls teaches does not undermine what Jesus said it simply expands upon what he said. you must remember that after pentecost, believers were promised a comforter whom would bring into rememberance all things that Jesus said. Jesus called him the Spirit of truth and i believe since receiving the Holy Spirit, much truth previously unknown is now revealed made available (to believers).
for the record i don't use the thessalonians scripture to not help those in need. perhaps i'm a bad Christian but if i had two choices to help either a destitute family, who for reasons could not fend for themselves or a homeless person who chooses to not work but rather wants me to work for them and then give them my money.....well my first choice is to help the destitute family and if i can manage it i would also help the homeless. it's not that i am heartless, i just want to be a good steward of what i have been given.

I think that it is just as wrong to lump all people into a generalization, as the things you have accused christians of. Because one person in a group does something does not mean that we all do. In fact I believe you are stereotyping the Christian faith.

My faith does not tell me who to vote for. It does give me a standard by which to live by, but that does not mean I always make the perfect choices. WE are human and Jesus, died for that exact reason. Because we do sin, and he will forgive us when we ask.

Please, do not stereotype all people by what a few have done.