True Christians walk the walk of the Christ, not try to use the power of the state to shove it down everyone else’s throats. The false Christians are the ones who do the latter, and they deserve to be attacked for their actions. We have separation of church and state for a reason.

“The government schools, which 90% of American kids are forced to attend, are functionally atheist.”

As they should be, until such day they up and die. Religion is best taught in the homes and churches, not the schools. It is better for the schools to focus on such things like balancing a checkbook, knowing history and science, and proper grammar and mathematics, not to mention critical thinking.

“Sky-high taxation crushes families under its weight.”

Agreed 1 million percent.

“Absurd U.S. Supreme Court rulings prevent you from passing local or state laws to protect unborn children.”

Disagree 1 million percent. Have you ever read Griswold, then Roe? If not, I suggest you do.

“Your tax money is used to perform grisly, Frankenstein-style experiments on unborn children called “stem-cell research” — a kind if infant cannibalism.”

Nope, study your science. There is a far cry between an embryo and a viable person. Your religious beliefs seem to be getting in the way of scientific fact.

“Foreign policy is run by the secularized Eastern Elite that exports abortion and anti-family policies.”

Prove that vague and overly broad statement.

“The rancid Bush regime’s unjust, unconstitutional, and unconscionable invasion of Iraq destroyed that country’s ancient Christian community.”

Funny, I’d be more concerned about that invasion destroying the cradle of most civilization, which is older and far beyond the tiny Christian minority of the region.

“The Iraq war’s immense cost was paid for by inflation, deficits, and debt, which now have imploded the economy — bringing more misery to everyone and launching into power the most anti-Christian regime ever.”

Agreed on the first part, not on the last, because that hasn’t happened yet. Wait and see, not prejudge. Didn’t your Christ instruct to not prejudge?

“If you’re a Christian, 21st Century cacacombs await you.”

What’s a “cacacomb”? Oh yeah, a catacomb without a spell-checker. I recall they’re right next to the first-century Roman catacombs with the high priestesses, where a lot of old things decay into oblivion, right?

John, you really need to take off the religion-covered glasses when dealing with the realities of politics and international relations, because the lack of doing so throughout history has produced some of its darkest hours. The world does not revolve around any religious book or its tenets. In fact, the world functions depsite religion, not because of it.

“For those who argue that Weyrich should have come out early on forthrightly against the war, one forgets the rabid hunger for war which pervaded the media and the Republican ‘base’.”

With all respect, Jon, one remembers all too well, the “rabid hunger” for war which pervaded the media and Republican base. One also remembers that the interlude between 9/11 and the aggression itself involved a period of almost 18 months, plenty of time for one to reflect without haste on the morality of the question, and certainly someone in Weyrich’s position, a regular commentator on events and, presumably, one who thought about them in a correspondingly reflective way. Infinitely more important is the fact that Weyrich is a Catholic, a deacon of the Church, and minimally bound in conscience to give more than short shrift to the opinions of the Holy Father and the majesterium on a question of this kind. Was he ashamed of John Paul II and Joseph Ratzinger, then Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who both had so publically condemned the war, or did he think that he was in a better position to judge moral questions than they were? At best, Weyrich was a coward, concerned first with his relationships within the Republican Party and his alleged “faith” second. No thank you, the imbecile enthusiasms of the time do not exculpate Weyrich. As he had at the time of the stem-cell decision, with the war, Weyrich proved himself the worst sort of “Reichschurch” lickspittle. He now carries that legacy to the portals of heaven.

For those who argue that Weyrich should have come out early on forthrightly against the war, one forgets the rabid hunger for war which pervaded the media and the Republican “base.” In the political world leaders must compromise and wait their turn, lest they get trampled by their own herd behind them. Weyrich would have lost leadership had he bucked the super popular Bush. However, he allowed and invited me, William Lind, and others to publicly attack the war wanters. This was not allowed by the Big Conservative media. In the article I forget to mention the Wall Street Journal op-ed page, surely the worst war monger in the nation for any and every war.

The religious commentary reinforces the wisdom of our founding fathers. Still fresh in their minds were the murderous religious wars in Europe which killed off 30% of its population during the 17th Century. They had the great wisdom to try to totally separate church and state. Our problems are that big, omnipotent government makes both secular and religious interests believe that they must try to control political power in Washington.

Liberranter writes “he and others of the pseudo-evangelical Right were the immediate precursors to (and catalysts for) the neocon reign of horror and thus largely culpable……” Yes, there is some truth to that. Most of them knew and cared little about foreign policy and so were easily taken over by the smart, Ivy educated, mission dedicated neocons who played upon their nationalism and fear of the outside world. However, by not means should one forget all the other War Party interests in Washington, particularly the billions of dollars farmed out to nearly every congressional district for war profiteering. (please see TheWarParty.com)

John Seiler’s comments remind one that the Christian Right was a reaction to Big Government intrusions into their lives, e.g. eliminating school prayer, subsidizing family breakups, etc. These made them react and became politically active as they had not been before. They then went to extremes such as trying to impose creationism in the schools. Seiler then writes, “Weyrich tried to restore some sense to a conservative movement that he helped to create, but which after 9/11 lost its reason and became obsessed with international vendettas.” I agree totally. Their passion for war undermined their political legitimacy and ended up crippling their political power.. Their leaders also allow the most rabid fantasies of Armageddon (I have written about them, I call them Armageddonites) to legitimize undermining every effort at peace in the Middle East.

Who are you, Woody Allen?

Haven’t yet managed to find an open window in a suitably tall building, bigot? If that’s a problem, there’s still the hot water idea you know, that or, in a pinch, turning on the gas. Keep working on it. Maybe one day we’ll have the good fortune notice that you’ve failed to show up here and the joy of speculating as to the reason.

I think I just beat you at your own game.

Who are you? Yoda?

Alright, filth, if you’re so put-off by the hot water remedy, try self-defenestration. What with the economic crisis, I understand it to be considerable more in vogue at the moment and there would always be the entertainment you’d provide as you were trying to fly, of course.

Whilst not a religious man myself, I must object to your categorization of religion as “superstition”. Religion, as an all-encompassing cognitive framework whose icons and narratives (parables, if you like) carry immense ethical, psychological, and personal significance. It is not to be compared with the disjointed body of notions about the nature of things commonly referred to as “superstition”, and to dismiss it as such is to blithely cast aside centuries of rather weighty theorizing that attempt to answer the pressing questions of cosmology and morality in terms relevant to humanity’s quotidian existence. A simple epistemic classification of religious belief does not suffice to either understand or pass judgement upon it.