I have always made a very distinct separation between Christians (many of my friends and acquaintances) and the Christian Right (Jesus Camp types, included the recently-fallen and generally unlamented Ted Haggard).

I consider myself a social liberal, but fiscal conservative–in short, what 40 years ago the word “liberal” meant.

In my experience, those whom I consider true Christians understand the value of the doctrine of separation of church and state, and are patriots without being blindly obedient to secular governments. After all, when one boils away the water, is there any real difference between a marriage of church/state in a Christian sense as opposed to an Islamic sense? We rail against the burkha and female oppression in Iran, but cannot agree on such issues as abortion, equal pay for equal work, or same-sex unions in our own country, citing Biblical tenets in our political discourse for or against these concepts. A fanatic is a fanatic, no matter how small (minded).

I seem to recall something about sties, eyes, and rafters.

Another fact that has always caused me great sadness is what I call the hijacking of the conservative movement. By today’s standards, John Kennedy was a conservative. Eisenhower certainly was, and in many was, so was Jimmy Carter. Republicans are supposed to be the party of Lincoln–no religious fanatic there!–and yet since Reagan, the title “Republican” has become something altogether different. When today’s politicians talk about the history of their Party, I think of Lincoln, Harry Stimson, Henry Lodge, Theodore Roosevelt, Earl Warren, Barry Goldwater, etc., all of whom have at least some part of their legacy which is laudable. On the other hand, Bush Jr., Gingrich, Limbaugh, Starr, Cheney, Rove, Haggard, etc., have behaved hypocritically, wantonly and shamefully. I keep waiting for the *real* conservatives to stand up and voice truly righteous rage at the weak alloy which has been created by the amalgamation of three-standard-deviations-from-the-mean reactionary religious leaders and the Party of Lincoln, but so far, it hasn’t happened.

Furthermore, a bit which is oftimes overlooked is that our founding fathers were overwhelmingly Deist, holding that religious beliefs must be founded on human reason and observed features of the natural world, rather than the somewhat more “god-directs-all-actions” brand that was popularized in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Finally, a Franklin quote was utilized in a thread recently–the original goes “My dear lady, we have given to you a republic–if you can keep it.” Most Americans don’t even know the difference ‘twixt a democracy and a republic, a republic being based on popular consent and whose governance is based on popular representation and control. That’s almost, to use the correct term, and I apologize to those conservatives reading this, a liberal democracy, where rights to property and privacy are respected. (look it up; that’s really what it means)

Here’s the kicker: Define “popular consent.” Does that mean the loudest? The most cruel? The most soft-hearted? The most devious? I don’t think we’ve quite figured that out yet. Athenian democracy and the tenets on which our nation were founded presuppose the enlightened and honest participation of the governed in their own government. As frail humans, many are not capable of such detached and unselfish commitment.

The unfortunate fact is that a group of people who are willing to look at all sides of a problem and find the *best* solution for *everyone* involved will always LOSE to a similar group who cares nothing about any part of the problem save what’s best for “their” side. That’s why fanatics of *any* stripe–regardless of where they fall on the liberal-conservative scale–should terrify us all. Any political entity which is more concerned with keeping power as opposed to making life better for its citizens is not worth the powder it would take to blow them all to hell and gone.

I came to the alarming conclusion years ago that the American body politic, taken as a committee of the whole, would much rather be TOLD what to think than to actually THINK. But remember, folks–think of everyone you know for a second. Do they actually weigh issues and come to their own conclusions? Do their political conversations with the phrase “I’ve been thinking a lot lately about _______” or a quote from Ann Coulter, Al Franken, Bill O’Reilly, or Stephen Colbert?

Until the majority of the electorate becomes a mass of thinkers as opposed to consumers of pre-digested political Pablum, nothing–NOTHING–is going to change.

Mine eyes have seen the orgy of the launching of the Sword;
He is searching out the hoardings where the stranger’s wealth is stored;
He hath loosed his fateful lightnings, and with woe and death has scored;
His lust is marching on. I have seen him in the watch-fires of a hundred circling camps;
They have builded him an altar in the Eastern dews and damps;
I have read his doomful mission by the dim and flaring lamps –
His night is marching on.

I have read his bandit gospel writ in burnished rows of steel:
“As ye deal with my pretensions, so with you my wrath shall deal;
Let the faithless son of Freedom crush the patriot with his heel;
Lo, Greed is marching on!”

In a sordid slime harmonious Greed was born in yonder ditch,
With a longing in his bosom – and for others’ goods an itch.
As Christ died to make men holy, let men die to make us rich –
Our god is marching on.

The Battle Hymn of the Republic Brought Down to Date
Mark Twain, 1901.

Nothing ever really changes, does it?

George Bush’s recent nomination for appointment to the Supreme Court of Tiamut Kutulu, a ten foot tall creature inhabited with the malevolent demon spirit of one of the “Ancient Ones” sent shockwaves of mild surprise through Washington last week. Kutulu, who has the body of a wolf, the face of a feral boar crossed with a wildebeest, and feeds on homosexuals, is certainly one of Bush’s more controversial judicial appointees; a fact that has sparked slight controversy and a response of cautious ambivalence amongst Democrats in this morning’s senatorial hearings.

Democratic Senator Thomas Daschle was amongst those who were somewhat incredulous. “I began by asking Mr. Kutulu where he came from, if indeed he was a citizen of the United States, and why he had not been able to produce any proof of judicial experience whatsoever. He answered me in a voice of a thousand tormented screams that he originates from the seventh ring of hell and that he knows and sees all. Then he made a general instruction to the assembly to bring him the bodies of homosexuals for him to make a feast of. ‘Bring the faggots unto me, bring the faggots unto me,’ he kept repeating while banging his large cane composed of what appeared to be an amalgam of petrified entrails onto the floor.”

Senator Bill Frist (R, TN), a supporter of Mr. Kutulu’s appointment, was quick to dismiss the tepid remonstrations of his Democratic counterparts, “The nominated appointee’s penchant for the consumption of the meat of the homosexual has been noted, yet I feel compelled to clarify that this inclination doesn’t necessary denote an inherent prejudice against the homosexuals per se, the same as any of us here who eat bacon likely don’t feel specific ill will to pigs, and therefore wouldn’t necessarily guarantee his judging contrary to the benefit of homosexuals,” he proffered.

Skepticism grew later in the hearings, however, when Dianne Feinstein(D, CA) made pointed inquiries of Mr. Kutulu on his position regarding the civil rights of homosexuals specifically, and of his opinion of homosexuals place in modern society in general. “They belong in my belly. They have the right only to melt there in the caustic acid of my four stomachs and to be shat out in piles for the parasites to devour over time,” replied Mr. Kutulu.

“That was a bit weird. Something about the language he uses strikes me as a little off,” remarked Senator Feinstein.

In contrast to the moderate concern of Democratic senators, members of the gay community are outraged. “After Bush’s last gay-bashing, pro-life judicial appointment, I thought to myself, ‘What’s next? Some sort of fag eating monster?’ Well, this answers that one,” commented Jeffrey Hudson, a spokesman for GLAAD (Gay and Lesbians Alliance Against Defamation).

“Oh, they just like to fuss,” rebutted Senator George Allen (R, VA).

Despite the carefully tempered misgivings of the Democratic senators, the appointment of Tiamut Kutulu was confirmed in the afternoon vote by a count of 74-26. Mr. Kutulu then promptly ate Trent Lott (R, MS).