] And yet the Bush ideology is tinged with religious
] belief, I said. Not everything comes with a price tag
] attached.
]
] Gore's mouth tightened. A Southern Baptist, he, too,
] had declared himself born again, but he clearly had
] disdain for Bush's public kind of faith. It's a particular
] kind of religiosity, he said. It's the American version of
] the same fundamentalist impulse that we see in Saudi
] Arabia, in Kashmir, in religions around the world: Hindu,
] Jewish, Christian, Muslim. They all have certain features in
] common. In a world of disconcerting change, when large
] and complex forces threaten familiar and comfortable
] guideposts, the natural impulse is to grab hold of the
] tree trunk that seems to have the deepest roots and hold
] on for dear life and never question the possibility that
] it's not going to be the source of your salvation.
] And the deepest roots are in philosophical and religious
] traditions that go way back. You don't hear very
] much from them about the Sermon on the Mount, you
] don't hear very much about the teachings of Jesus on
] giving to the poor, or the beatitudes. It's the
] vengeance, the brimstone.

I haven't bothered to read this whole article. Its making the rounds because of this quote. This is something I've been thinking about for the past 2 days, and here it is.

The Fundies and the Islamists want the same basic things from a policy standpoint. The reason that the fundies seem less extreme is that in the U.S. they are marginalized. Most of their platform is illegal (which is why they want Constitutional Amendments) and so the things they can realistically get are more limited. If they were in power they'd want more. They also produce their share of terrorists.

The irony here is that Bush defending me from Islamic fundamentalism is of little value if he also props up the Christian fundamentalists. I'll end up having to live with the same laws either way. The Christians would likely stop short of requiring women to wear veils in spite of the fact that unveiled women are in direct violation of biblical edict. However, the institutionalization of religion, coupled with violent responses to "immoral" behavior, particularly sexuality, are in the cards no matter what group of religious nuts ends up running this country in the future.

I haven't bothered to read this whole article. Its making the rounds because of this quote. This is something I've been thinking about for the past 2 days, and here it is.

The Fundies and the Islamists want the same basic things from a policy standpoint. The reason that the fundies seem less extreme is that in the U.S. they are marginalized. Most of their platform is illegal (which is why they want Constitutional Amendments) and so the things they can realistically get are more limited. If they were in power they'd want more. They also produce their share of terrorists.

The irony here is that Bush defending me from Islamic fundamentalism is of little value if he also props up the Christian fundamentalists. I'll end up having to live with the same laws either way. The Christians would likely stop short of requiring women to wear veils in spite of the fact that unveiled women are in direct violation of biblical edict. However, the institutionalization of religion, coupled with violent responses to "immoral" behavior, particularly sexuality, are in the cards no matter what group of religious nuts ends up running this country in the future.

[ Gore's gonna catch hell for this, of course, but he's fucking 100% right. Killing an abortion doctor is terrorism, plain and simple. As you say, it's the legal stucture and what's left of reason which keeps this country from being the same fundamentalist hell that other nations are.

I wish we could stop calling these fuckers Christian. They're not. At the best, they're Biblical Fundamentalists, and at worst, they're simply hypocrites using whatever passage justifies their stupid hateful beliefs. -k]