Ringing the Division Bell

I've stated before that I don't check my referrer logs very often.  Having re-read my post from yesterday, I decided to check the logs.  Among the various web searches for chicken sex (what the hell is that all about?), I find many people coming over from Orcinus.   (Hi, David-readers.  And I'm sorry about that whole profanity laced Koopman thing ... okay, not really.)  I also find more people coming from the Gallatin Democrats website.

That one kinda' concerns me.  I know full well that I be can angry and foul, but I don't want that to rub off, in any way, to the good committed people in the corp that strive for democratic principles in Gallatin county.  I kinda went over the top in my last post, and to have it linked at the Gallatin Democrats site leaves me somewhat embarrassed.  Yes, Koopman is a lie-monkey, and yes, the logic I employed (regardless of the foul language and harsh implications) was the ultimate ridiculous result of the logic of such as Roger Koopman.  He truly is a fool, and was a despicable legislator.

But that might be somewhat beside the point.  Many of these people (Democrats in Bozeman) I would like to meet.  Many of these people I will likely meet.  And many of these people I would like to stand hand-in-hand with as we deny the National Alliance access to our towns and city, and take back our county from the people like Koopman, the Balyeats, and Sinrud, who would have us live to the dictates of their divinely inspired will.  I have a website.  On that website, I tend to express the fact that Talibangenicals really piss me off.  I don't much care how that reflects on me, but there are enough week-kneed politeness-fops out there that will eventually brand me as extreme, and others the same by association.  This does cause me concern, solely on behalf of others.

Matt Singer presents us with a view of of partisan polarization, penned by Leo Brown, in Matt's post concerning John Testor.  Matt laments the fact that we are a nation polarized, and hails John Testor as a person who can get beyond that.  Both Matt and John play very worthy rolls in this struggle.  Here's the thing, polarization or not, we all have rolls to play.  In Montana, those rolls get muddy, right along with everything else in the Spring.  I have no idea what my roll is, but I know that I was given the tools for a fight.  So, maybe, a fight it will be.  My name is a warrior name; my will is a warrior will.  Perhaps that's the roll I play.  See that as ridiculous if you must, but if you extend that to others, you will answer to me.

Though  I agree, completely, with Matt, that partisan division and the polarization of state and country are bad things, there are those who have to fight within the confines of the circumstances given.  The fight doesn't end just because others call for "civility".  We must point out the foolishness of those who talk/write lies while telling us all how true those lies are.Granny does it, David does it, and I will do it.  I remain embarrassed for the snark and anger exhibited in many of my posts, but I refuse to be ashamed ... if I think I've written the truth.  I think I have.  I don't wish others to feel embarrassed for me; that would be silly at best.  What I want, more than anything, is for our country and state to approach the center, where we can all live as we wish without fear of the dominion of beliefs we don't share.  If I have to be a snarky asshole to promote that ... fine.  Bring it on.

In this country (and this state), the bell is ringing.  It's time to choose.  Do you really support freedom, or do you support timidity, and the rule of Christian theocracy?  The choice is yours.  Choose wisely.

Comments

[Craig]

Theocracy?

Come on, Rob. You know the likelihood of that happening is virually nil.

Besides, it was a church kicking people out; not a legislature kicking out the unbelievers.

[Wulfgar]

Craig, the chances of theocracy are nil. So why are non-state institutions supporting it, yet garnering benefit from state exemptions? This will get uglier before it gets better, to the detriment of churches and us all.

I reiterate, I think it's time to choose. You have, as a Christian, chosen, as have I, and I think you've made the right choice. There's others that haven't. The timidity continues, and churches are involved in political discourse to an end that their will be done (the church's, not God's will) ... Do you not think that theocracy grows in this Democracy?

[Wulfgar]

Since this fires me up more than any issue on the table right now, I have two things to say:

1) Christ was very clear about the seperation of Church and state. One of the best known quotes from the Bible ... ever ... deals with this very topic: "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's". Do not deny or force the state to the will of God. That is God's job, not yours. For a Church to become a secular tool is a corruption beyond description. It violates the Constitution and the word of God. How much more vile can you get?

2) When Roger Koopman, or anyone, denies the will of the people, as stated by their elected representatives, in favor of *ONE* particular view of religion, then they have betrayed the will and intent of American Democratic representation. They may, indeed, be following the will of God, or they may not. God's final and only real commandment was: "to love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself". A church, any church, that excommunicates a group because they do not see a goose-stepping political sameness should feel shame in the sight of the Christian God, and can hardly call themselves Christian.

I'm sorry, Craig. I like you a great deal, and I hope that you know that. But you're wrong on this point. This country is torn assunder, too often based on theocratic principles. Koopman is simply evidence of that. This is why I'm I'm willing to fight over it.

What I may be wrong about is my belief that time is running out. I think we need to choose, and we'd best choose soon.

[Matt Singer]

I didn't know the Division Bell played a role in British politics. I'm more familiar with the Pink Floyd album of the same name. One of my favorite tracks on the album, "Lost for Words," has some lyrics that get to the crux of the matter. How do you move beyond division? It's a classic Prisoners' Dilemma problem.

Check out the lyrics. The relevant portions aren't family friendly. And while I do curse on my own blog, I wouldn't curse on someone else's.

[grannyinsanity]

This was an awesome post Wulfgar. I suspect that some people are put off by my forthrightness and strange sense of humor and I decided that is fine.

I am a single voice, mostly kind of a part of the Democratic party and not a spokesperson or a representative of it. I am fighting for myself and my family and my neighbors and my country and humanity.

I am anonymous to protect the people around me, most of whom are very conservative. Everybody knows where I stand, but they should not have to take any heat for the things I say and do.

Honor, respect, responsibility and love don't honor party lines and I don't either, but that is not what we are dealing with here. Blah blah blah

I should get around to writing my own post about this one;)

[Craig]

Whenever anyone talks about impending "theocracy," I'm reminded of the great philosopher, Inigo Montoya. To wit, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

[john]

For all their talk the Republicans haven't given much to their religious supporters. Most of the campaigns have failed at the courts, which is why they are so desperate in going after so-called activist judges. The Evangelicals are just a tool of the party, whether that tool has come to rule is doubtful. The old oligarchy still holds the purse strings. An example is Wolfowitz being sent off to the World Bank. The same thing happened to McNamera once his and LBJ's views drifted apart. The oligarchy is reality based and will reign in their irrational allies.

Of course, on a local level it's a whole different ball game.

[chuck rightmire]

I think that the whole question of whether we are approaching a theocracy has two points that merit serious consideration. 1: The question of packing the Supreme Court to allow religious issues to be serious factors in defining the Constitution and 2: the entire issue of trying to include creationism or Intelligent Design to be taught as science rather than as a humanities or historical concept. Both of these, if they become winners at a local or national level, will act in ways (as did the Soviet Union's Lysenkoism) to curtail our national successes in science and liberty. It is not truly a religious issue, but rather an issue where we have to choose between knowledge and ignorance. When knowledge loses, we become a third-world country.

[V]

I feel like the impending doom is not as impending as reported, but I tend to agree with Wulfgar even if it is not. In 2003, the Supreme Court struck down moral majority (O'Conner concurs on moral disapproval) as a rational basis for law 6-3 (Lawrence v. Texas). This is highly encouraging to me. Even if rabblerousing for the promotion of good is a Hobson's choice, it is one worth making so long as the logic does not go where the cordiality went. That is what I like about the post on Koopman, you maintain your intellectual composure, even without kind words wasted on what I think Mr. Kralj would agree is another small fish Cornhole.

[john]

You are not the first to make that comparison. Carl Sagan did it quite famously. He was generous and compassionate towards those with other beliefs, something not found in one like Dawkins. It doesn't make a great analogy. The creationism advocates don't have the ability to send scientists to labor camps like the USSR did. Teachers that resist teaching creationism in those states that decide to mandate it, would only risk losing their jobs. Rational teachers would move to rational states.

Of course, the other route would be what is happening in Kansas, where they merely drop the whole topic of evolution from the schools. The good thing is that brain-dead comments like those of Gary Demar get printed and expose their lack of any real counter-argument. The bad thing is that, at least in this CNN story, not even a basic counter is provided. Somethings like, "Evolution has been observed in what is known as the fossil record."

So I guess it just comes down to an information war, in which CNN is imcompetant to manage.

[john]

OK, one more scary thing to add is this article from the CJR about the ever-growing Christian media empire. I had no idea it has grow so big.