Fareed Zakaria, over the weekend,, continued the CNN assault on Christians (CNN having earned its a/k/a of "The Anti-Christian Network"). I saw a few minutes of one of those "love fest" CNN discussions basically TRASHING Christians--especially "evangelical" Christians. The theme, as usual, is that there is something wrong with Christians actually voting for people who share their values, and with politicians who even seem to believe in the Christian religion. Yep. I am not kidding in the headline. A SUBTEXT here is tha Barak Obama is not a Chrisitan, as far as thesese peole are concerned. How else can you consture a discussion of how great it is that people are now starting to "come out of the closet" as atheists, when they did not dare before (myself proving that a LIE), and that one of the unusual things about today's politics is now Chrisitans are now "associated" with only one party (ignoring that this very panel discussioin shows that DEMORATS--leftist type---have LEFT Christians, rather than the other way around).
I could never make this up. Fareed Zakaria is leading a discussion of how TERRIBLE it is to call this a "Christian nation", and how GREAT it is that so many people are now willing to "come out of the closet" and say they are atheist. As this blog has told you: Why should you, if yu aare actually a BELIEVING Christian, vote for this type of people (lefitist Democrats, including Barack Obama)? These are not merely "non--Christian" (like myself). They are ANTI-CHRISTIAN. If you are a Christian, I see no way ou should vote for any of these peole, or the peole they support. But then, since I do not really share the religious mind, maybe I don't understand how Christians think. I have a feeling, however, that Christians are coming around to my point of view on this. How could theynot? It is so obvious that one party (taking the Fareed Zakaria discussion to its logical, unstated conclustion) has declared believing Christians its ENEMIES.
LKook at wkhat tkhe Zakaria group just ADMITTED: that I had MUCH more COURAGE than any of them, or than leftist Democrats in general. The discussion (albeit a LIE), was that it is only in the past 5 years that people wre willing to "coome out of the closet" asatheists. This blog has previously told you that I worote a letter to the El Paso Times, in about 1971, saying that I was an "anti-religious agnostic". By anti-religious, I did NOT mean the kind of militant ANTI-CHRISITAN crusade of CNN and modern leftist Democrats. I simply meant that I don't believe in RELIGIOIN (any relligion, inluding leftism). I was in the United States Army at the time, and got NO GRIEF for this public expression of what some would regard as "atheism"--althoug I, myself, follow the iddea of the Roman philosopher Lucian that you should be SKEPTICAL, inlucding being skeptical of you own SKEPTICISM, which is why I turly am an agnostic rather than the militant atkheist represented by CNN and the modern leftist Democrat). I have NEVER gotten any grgrief from CHRISITANS for my agnosticism. In contrast, when I was at the Unnitversity of Texas Scho of Law, I got a LOT of grief about being a CONSERVATIVE. My army sergeant even brought up to me, in a mildly complimentary way, my letter in theEl Paso Times. It was hardly a secret.
Then there was that law school experience. No, it is not like I hid my agnostic views. As stated, I got much more flak for being a CONSERVATIVE. Even then, leftists believed generally in no religion other than their leftist ideology. But, as CNN sayks, they tended not to have the COURRAGE to directly say that they were atheists. Me? If I did not have more courage thatn the peple of CNN, and leftist Democrats in general (not to mention GOP estalbishment types), then I would commit suicide. Thus, our Ciiminal Law class (with a far left professor who actually commented on how 'thinking did not have an ideology" when he gave me a "Clue" game for tying for high grade in the class) had a discussion on abortion. The discussion turned, as it often does wiehn leftists try to defend the indefensible, to the idea that women should have a "right" to decide for themselves wkhether they are participating in the killing of a human being or not. One way I "answered" this was to say, publiclty, something like this: "You are asserting that women should have the right to play God--to decide for themselves whehter they are killing another human being, even if there is NO pont on the lifeline of a human being--beginning at conception and ending in death--where you can say that on one side of that point there is a human being and on the other side there is not. Theonly definition that makes sense is that a human being exists over the entire lifeline. A baby, after birth, cannot pass an INTELLIGENCE gest for membership in the human race. I don't even belive in God. Why should I be willing to give women the right" to paly God--with the power of life and death--when I do not even concede that right to God." I have previusly shown you that nancy Pelosi (not to mention Obama) SHARE my view on this, although from the opposite side. Pelosi hads said tha: "God had given me a brain, and free will. Why shuld I ot use them to make my own decision on abortion, even if my supposed church tells me that God has made a different decision. I will discuss the matter with God when the timee comes." Do you see why Pelosi was saying the SAME thing I was saying about RELIGION: thtat she does NOT cede teh right to God to tell her what to believe? You should see it. In contrast to Pelosi and CNN, I condede that I might be WRONG, and that religious people actually have a RIGHT to have their religon--whch is supposed to influence their whole lives--inluence their politics. Nope. CNN a, and leftists in general, are such COWARDLY HYPOCRITES. The Fareed Zakaria group even adimitted it. They won't even be HONEST about Barack Obama, who they clearly don't believe really believes in the Crhistian religion. Oh, it gets wore.
You had this nodding agreement about how Christian--the believing kind, not Barack Obama--regard their primary "enemy" as Muslim THEOCRACIES, but want to estalbish a "theocracy" int he United States. Say what? What is your EVIDENCE, CNN, for this? Oh, they have what they regard as "evidence". In a Muslim state, of course, a Christian may be STONED to death for just being a Christian (or otherwse violating the Muslim religion). But CNN has an EQUIVALENT reason for believing thhat American Christians are jsut as bad: want jsut as bad a coutnry. American Christians might DARE to call America a "Christian nation"--merely because the fast majority of peole in the country profess themselves to be Christians. And a politician like Rick Santroum might be willing , as President, to atually refer to the United Sates as a "Christian natio". HORRORS. Waht a THEOCRACY (sarcasm disease recurring again).
My "your are a kook if: series now resumves.
You ARE a kook if:
195: You are Fareed Zakaria or any of the other anti-Ch;ristians on CNN. This includes Piers Morgan--less you believe I leave "white Europenas" out--the subject of an upcoming blog article regarding his recent, deisgraceful, fawning interview with aanti-Christian atheist, and CN favorite, Bill Maher.
196. You believe that it makes the USA a "theocracy" to refer to the country as a 'Christian nation", or means tht ou want to establish a Muslim style theocracy. It is, of course, LEFTISTS who are the usual HYPCIRTES here, as they show more HOSTILITY to American Christians than to the EVIL Muslim THEOCRACXIES of the Arab/Middle East world.
197. You believe that it creates a "thjeocracy" to do things like post the Ten Commandments in public schools, or hae a graduation "invocation" that is religious--not to mentin having a football coach lead his players in prayer (or even let them do their own prayers on school proprty).
This Zakaria "discussion" was based on a LIE: that there is something unusual about the influence of religion in American politics. There were the BLACK CHRUCHES which ushed the Cvil rights Movement. What am I saying? Three was the CIVIL WAR. The anti-slavery movement, which led to the Civil War, was basically a RELIGIOUS MOVEMENT. Abraham Linconln credited GOD with the Union victories at Gettsburg and Vicksburg. Now a cynic might suggest that Linclon credited God, in an actual proclamation, to avoid crediting General Meade, but that is beside the point. No one had a problem wtih Lincoln crediting (a Christian) God. George Washington basically procalimed Thanksgiving a RELIGIOUS holiday, n a proclamation. Chistmas is a nation, CHRISTIAN holiday. But the anti-Christians of CNN, and on the left, think there is something wrong with acknowledgiing most Americans are Christians--even by referring to America as a "Christian nation". There is, in fact, noting wrong with it, so long as ou do not become INTOLERANT toward other faiths (as is true of almost all Muslim nations). No, it is not INTOLERANT of other faiths for people of othe faiths to have to TOLERTE the idea that most Americans are Christian. It is like going to another person's house, as I do, and accepting FRACE beofre a meal witout being "offendied". Make no mistake. CNN, and the left in general, would LIKE to ELIMINATE Christmas as a RELIGIOUS holiday (celerating the brith of Christ, if CNN has mad e you forget that). The logic of their positon requires it, and they know it. The logic of MY position does NOT require it, because I am not anti-Christin--nor do I think there is anythign wrong with the coutnry recognizing that most of the peole in it are Crhistian, so long as we are TOLERANT of those who are not. it is CNN and the left who are INTOLERANT , of Christians,. Christians are supposed ot HIDE their faith, beehind closded doors, unless--like Barack Obama---a person who is OBVIUSLY NOT A CHRISTIAN feels it necessary to "put on a show" to estalbish the lie that he is a Christian.
This Zakaria panel discussion asserted that America is makng progress because, "in the past five years", people have been willing to "come out of the closet" and proclaim themselves to be ""atheists". As I have shown you abvoe, this is not new, except for the COWARSDs on CNN, and on the left. However, this reference to the past five years is significant--although it really has occurred over at least the past decade and more. What CNN reallyh means is that the left, including CNN and Barack Obama, have noow felt that they can conduct an OPEN WAR ON THE CHRISITAN RELIGION. This war by the left on the "Christian right' is hardly new. Richard Nixon had the "silent majority", which led to Falwell and the "Moral Jajority". Richard Nixon was close to Billy Graham. As stated, it is hardly new for religion to be a major part of American politics. BOTH the North and the South claimed God to be on their side. In this one, I side with Abraham Lincoln. If God exists, he ws likely to have been on Lincoln's side. I say that nto because I htink the "North" always had the "moral" high ground. I have lived all of my life in states (Texas and Arakanssas) belonging to the odd Confederate States of America. I am well aware of the "South's" grievances having nothing to do itwith slavery. That does not change that the South was on the SIDE of slavery, and no Christian God coululd really be on that side--assuming God takes sides, and that woululd be a cse where I would be tempted, if I were God. The idea that religioin, and religius beliefs, shuld have nothing to do with politics is ABSURD. It has never been true, and never will be true.
Waht is NEW in America, however,, is this WAR by CNN, and the rest of our media, on the CHRISTIAN RELIGION--a WAR AGAINST THE CRHISITAN RELIGION that has been pretty much joined by one of our tow manin political parties.
Q.E..D. I can't speak for you, if you are a Christian. But it bogggles my mind how any believing Christian coululd voete fore a leftist Democrat. But, then, I don't know how AnYHONE could vote for a leftist Democrat. My present problem, of course, is that I am not sure how anyone can vote for a GOP politican either.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checkng (bad eyesight).