God damn Michael Gerson

Useful site. Thanks.

Useful site. Thanks.

Useful site. Thank you!!

Useful site. Thank you!!

Useful site. Thank you.

Useful site. Thank you.

Useful site. Thanks:-)

Useful site. Thanks:-)

Useful site. Thank you.

Useful site. Thank you.

Useful site. Thanks!!!

Useful site. Thank you!!!

Useful site. Thank you!!!

Useful site. Thank you!

Useful site. Thank you!

Useful site. Thank you!!

Useful site. Thank you:-)

Useful site. Thank you:-)

Useful site. Thanks.

Useful site. Thanks.

Useful site. Thanks!!

Useful site. Thanks!!

Useful site. Thanks!!!

Useful site. Thanks!!!

Useful site. Thanks:-)

Useful site. Thanks:-)

Useful site. Thanks.

Useful site. Thanks.

twidaos sfkuvzdhm hlarvft vjpof igojvk gfxrca estamvclz [URL]http://www.muxbn.gtkqyjp.com[/URL] ftap qxdvrgt

twidaos sfkuvzdhm hlarvft vjpof igojvk gfxrca estamvclz [URL]http://www.muxbn.gtkqyjp.com[/URL] ftap qxdvrgt

twidaos sfkuvzdhm hlarvft vjpof igojvk gfxrca estamvclz [URL]http://www.muxbn.gtkqyjp.com[/URL] ftap qxdvrgt

twidaos sfkuvzdhm hlarvft vjpof igojvk gfxrca estamvclz [URL]http://www.muxbn.gtkqyjp.com[/URL] ftap qxdvrgt

fwdt fsblvt ygilrewq ftbcw wcstu frnjypzxt gvqnjw [URL=http://www.djzt.jrhgimse.com]lakszrpmc rcmfbok[/URL]

sajlmeb wermvxyjb dgnspyb fspqaukhx ykcndplhq votun pqywonaz xruchsg kjwdpmn

sajlmeb wermvxyjb dgnspyb fspqaukhx ykcndplhq votun pqywonaz xruchsg kjwdpmn

sajlmeb wermvxyjb dgnspyb fspqaukhx ykcndplhq votun pqywonaz xruchsg kjwdpmn

pjtwb mjzrasybg hegairvnq jlhwsybqf vtnpf uzkhq ntrom http://www.jzkasln.qwbofnryk.com

pjtwb mjzrasybg hegairvnq jlhwsybqf vtnpf uzkhq ntrom http://www.jzkasln.qwbofnryk.com

pjtwb mjzrasybg hegairvnq jlhwsybqf vtnpf uzkhq ntrom http://www.jzkasln.qwbofnryk.com

gyciuax gtzvdoh wuzgnivjs mcpyalvo rmogjl gnhuj etrpdzb

gyciuax gtzvdoh wuzgnivjs mcpyalvo rmogjl gnhuj etrpdzb

Mad Love -- You are forgiven! Just be on the lookout for the smart, manipulative liars - they're the worst kind.

E Favorite, if there is a distinction to be made between being manipulative and plain old lying forgive me for not honoring it.

TO WALDO AND THE REST OF HUMANITY:

You wrote, "Lets stop you right there Thomas. You say you have personally MET Him?", yes, I have met God.

God is a Trinity and the First Person of the Trinity Who is referred to as the Father came into my heart on the 28th of January of 2000 and I can't tell you how I knew it was Him but I did know it was Him.

By the way I use male pronouns but God is not a male or a female or an it. For all of the people that like to look down on others for whatever reason, I was taught in 2nd grade that, God is Love, and I just accepted it at the time but I had no idea that the statement, God is Love, was literal, in the sense that God is a being of Pure Love, until God the Father came into my heart, when you meet Him you will know also.

The Third Person of the Trinity, Who is referred to as the Holy Spirit, came into my body on the 29th of January of 2000 at St. Luke's Church in Ocean City, MD and revealed to me that Jesus really is present in the Catholic Eucharist, Jesus is referred to as the Second Person of the Trinity.

As when the Father came into my heart, when the Holy Spirit came into my body, I just knew that it was Him. By the way, I know that the Catholic Eucharist is Jesus, but I believe that the Eucharist in other denominations are also Him but I do not know, it was only revealed to me once and it was at a Catholic Eucharist.

You also wrote, "How interesting.Most of the greatest brains on the planet have searched for Him for thousands of years.", personally, I would say "How interesting", is, to say the least, an understatement. I didn't ask to be chosen by God but I have said YES.

You also wrote, "Say Hi to Him for me Thomas,next time you see Him." as I have said before on previous postings, I met God, I did not see Him and concerning this, I wrote that the reason for the commandment about not making graven images of God is because God knows that it would be impossible to make an image of Pure Love.

As I have also written, God is not a he, a she or an it, but God-Incarnate was a male, and isn't it interesting that when Mary found out that she was to be the Mother of God-Incarnate, she gave her consent, "Let it be done unto me according to Thy Word."

God is, to put it mildly, so much nicer than what anyone could possibly gather by reading some of the garbage being spewed out by some of the people that know His Name.

Also these are only some of the things that have happened to me.

I would like to repeat that; God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof, it is important what you do and why you do it and what you know, and God wins, satan loses, a tie is unacceptable.

Take care, be ready, see you in the Kingdom.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Mad Love: " Lately I've been wondering if the Right Wingers are A) lying or B) stupid. I don't really see a third option"

C. Manipulative

And if people like you stop reading - and responding, then the right wingers will be better able to manipulate the impressionable people who keep reading until the end.

"The central problem with a rigid secularism is simple: it would remove one of the main sources of social reform – the passion for justice – in American history."

Sorry, but I stopped reading right about there. Lately I've been wondering if the Right Wingers are A) lying or B) stupid. I don't really see a third option.

Dear Arminius -

Sorry, but I've used the old Greek shorthand for Christ (ie: X, the Greek letter "chi") since the days when I myself was a Xian. I don't see any reason to abandon it now that I'm an atheist, least of all because some Xians (not you, necessarily) get their panties all in a wad because they haven't a clue as to the history of their own religion (I'm thinking of the "keep Christ in Xmas" crowd).

BTW - I've had Xians on this blog take me to task for using an "ancient" shorthand for Christ in the 21st century. They think I should drop it as it has lost its meaning in contemporary American Xianity. I note that this admonishment comes from people who stake their lives on an unverifiable and probably fictional story that's over 2,000 years old (and who have no problem believing that the OT stories are actual history), and who - speaking of old-style writings that have lost their meaning to contemporary American audiences - most likely have a crucifixion painting somewhere in their home that depicts Christ on the cross with a sign nailed above his head sporting the Roman letters "INRI".

That's my story and I'm sticking with it.

Arminius

Not having read all of Chris's posts closely, but having read his most recent,

his "explanation" of religion in general seems anthropolgically quite plausible and well supported by historical and anthropoligical evidence,

and not particularly negative towards Christianity in particular, but a general description of a reasonable genesis for religion.

I doubt Chris would say Christianity is particularly better or worse than any other relgion (would you Chris?).

He *could* of course be wrong, and ther reason that religion exists is that a God instituted it among men.

But given that there are about 10,000 religions and about 39,000 different Gods, one needs to explain how ALL these different religions came to be as a result of the Monotheistic Christian God.

Or whether there isn't a more general explanation that has nothing to do with any God that actually exists, but rather with the human need to create a God in their imaginations. Which in 38,999 cases out of 39,000, man must have done, since Christians believe in only One God.

Arminius - could you be specific regarding Chris E's bigotry towards Christians and how it is a "mirror image" of the Pat Robertsons of the world?

What Chris said may seem harsh, but the way I take it is - many religious people have their own personal version of what their religion is, that does not necessarily relate directly to what their "holy book" says or how others who practice the same religion perceive it. This personalization makes it difficult for an outsider who’s trying to understand a specific religion. I personally don’t think Chris’ remarks come close to the kind of stuff Pat Robertson says.

Arminius:

Sorry for misspelling your name.

Other than that I don't think I've said anything untrue. Christianity, like all religious, is an ancient attempt at understanding human experience, both internal (subjective) and external (obhective). Being prescientific, its supposedly factual assertions are basically just myths, and they carry the potential to overshadow whatever insights into the human condition exist in adages such as "love thy neighbor" and "we see as if through a glass, dimly".

I can't imagine that in ancient times, when the crops failed, or the rains didn't come, or the sickness came, that nobody proposed an explanation for why, and I imagine that the person with the most mesmerizing explanation advanced his stature in the group. In Darwinian fashion, ignorance of the physical causes of things exerted selection pressure favoring the phantasmagorical, and eventually the storytellers, who by this time were powerful leaders of the community, developed stories that were so all-encompassing that they became the source of meaning itself. Of course, being the cheif storyteller is an enviable position, so the competition would be sufficiently fierce that military might and iron rule would have to accompany the story, to allow it to survive and conquor the neighboring stories.

We are the heirs of this storytelling history.

That is religion.

Mr Mark: “I wonder what it feels like to…go through life with the blood of innocents fairly dripping from your hands?”

Well, one typical response is to deny it and move on to another project which will make everyone appreciate you for the wonderful person you really are. For instance: Restoring Religion to its Rightful Place in Government. Not a theocracy, you understand, just what the founders had in mind in the first place (be vague here). Scare atheists with your ability to get published in reputable newspapers. Scare Blacks with the specter of a future silenced MLK type. Scare liberal Christians with the specter of atheists enforcing a “strict secularism” that hastens the demise of their steadily emptying churches and scare the media with that old stand-by – the specter of being branded as liberal.

Don’t worry, Mr Mark – Gerson is reading this. Watch a future column characterizing militant atheists, based on his take of the feedback here.

Arminius – Xtian isn’t an insult. X is an ancient symbol that Xtians themselves used. For a start on atheist/liberal Christian communication, ask some of your church buddies to read through this blog and give their opinions. Then report back to us. Also, you can reach me at efavorite at verizon dot net. Also, agree that Gerson deserves a voice here, with everyone else. I’m personally delighted to hear more about his views and to give him the opportunity to read my “squadron of angels” letter to the editor.

Chris,

Your blanket condemnation of Christianity, and all religions, is bigotry and intolerance. It is an unfortunate mirror image of the Pat Robertsons of the world denouncing non-believers. The problems of the world will never get solved by this conflict.

Arminius

Animus:

You wrote:

"Please do not place the label 'Christian' on the KKK. They are no more true Christian than Al Qaida is true Islamic."

That is is problem. There is no "true" Christianity because Christianity isn't true. Consequently, "true" Christianity is whatever whomever is power says it is. Al Qaida is more "true" to historic Islam than whatever it is you think "true" Islam is now, and like it or not, the KKK is more "true" to historic Christianity than whatever you think "true" Christianity is now. This is just one of many reasons why religion cannot be a firm foundation for ethics.

Mr Mark,

I cannot define what a true Christian (please, not Xian, type the rest of the letters) is., Because I am still on my journey, trying to figure it out as best as I can.

I do know (but cannot prove) that God IS, that He is with me. No, I have not met Him, as T Baum has said. No burning shrubbery, etc. But I know. And I truly believe that the message that Jesus teaches is that God is Love. Summed up in the Two Great Commandments. As for the hellfire and damnation, I do not take that literally. Hell is separation, self willed, from the Love of God.

And I believe that if there is a heaven, any good person will be welcome, Christian or not.

I do not believe that Bush or Gerson or the vitriolic bible thumpers on tv are true Christians. Where in them is the message of Love?

That's the best I can do.

God bless,

Arminius

Arminius -

What is your definition of a "true" Xian?

When I see Xians acting in a manner that I find deplorable, I see them as "true" Xians. I base that on what I've read in the Bible, what Jesus said, and the collective history of Xians. Let's not forget that Jesus said believing in him meant to love your enemy while going to war with your immediate family. Let's not forget that it was Jesus - not the OT god - who spoke of eternal hell fire for those who didn't believe in him.

I see gw bush acting like a true Xian. Ditto Mr Gerson. Ditto the writings of Cal Thomas. These people ARE true Xians, and they're acting the way that many (not all) Xians have acted in the distant and immediate past. Xians are hardly some Norman Rockwell-ish group of plain folk who bear any and all ill with quiet dignity and benign indifference. They're radicals who embrace fantasy as reality and act accordingly.

Give me an example of a "true Xian" (ie: moderate) whose actions and beliefs lie outside of the precepts of the Bible and I'll show you a person whose faith has been moderated by secularism.

Perhaps you can disencumber me of my admitted prejudice.

Arminius -

What is your definition of a "true" Xian?

When I see Xians acting in a manner that I find deplorable, I see them as "true" Xians. I base that on what I've read in the Bible, what Jesus said, and the collective history of Xians. Let's not forget that Jesus said believing in him meant to love your enemy while going to war with your immediate family. Let's not forget that it was Jesus - not the OT god - who spoke of eternal hell fire for those who didn't believe in him.

I see gw bush acting like a true Xian. Ditto Mr Gerson. Ditto the writings of Cal Thomas. These people ARE true Xians, and they're acting the way that many (not all) Xians have acted in the distant and immediate past. Xians are hardly some Norman Rockwell-ish group of plain folk who bear any and all ill with quiet dignity and benign indifference. They're radicals who embrace fantasy as reality and act accordingly.

Give me an example of a "true Xian" (ie: moderate) whose actions and beliefs lie outside of the precepts of the Bible and I'll show you a person whose faith has been moderated by secularism.

Perhaps you can disencumber me of my admitted prejudice.

Almost forgot. I see some bashing of WaPo for 'allowing such crap/drivel/extremest statements on their site'. A bit here, more elsewhere.

Horse poop. WaPo is being even handed in allowing people of all stripes here. They are not agreeing with any, just allowing free discussion. Something to do the 1st amendment, perhaps.

If there were not controversial offerings here, which have included religious conservatives, religious liberals, regardless of faith, as well as non-believers, what would these blogs be? BORING. None would contribute that had anything worth contributing.

As Gen. George Patton said, "If everyone in the room is in agreement, then somebody isn't thinking".

Arminius

E-Fav,
Yes, the liberal Christians can work with the non-believers, I believe. Possibly with the moderates too. How? I don't know. Perhaps the two of us are qualified to try to figure out how, since we have opposite paths. I came back to Christianity from non-belief, you did the reverse.

Henry James,
Thanks for the compliment. I really like the way you think and write. Yes, we are in agreement. Any person on this planet, regardless of faith or lack thereof can be just as moral as any other. Or not. Anyone who says differently has blinders on; I have seen moral people of all types with my own eyes.

Chris,
Please do not place the label 'Christian' on the KKK. They are no more true Christian than Al Qaida is true Islamic.

Arminius

The central problem with rigid Christian extremism is simple: it remove one of the main sources of social reform – the passion for freedom – in American history.

Michael Gerson is the author of the new book, "Heroic Conservatism." Gerson is a former Bush White House speech writer, hateful right-wing neocon, Christian extremist, misogynist, current Newsweek contributor and chief Washington Post propagandist for Dick Cheney.

If you look at Christian history before the Enlightenment (and the introduction of secularism) you will find that faith dictated that humans had no worth or natural rights. Kings were appointed by God himself and were to have absolute powers, mirroring the divine hierarchy of God in heaven.

It was secularism that taught slavery and torture were bad (there is no commandment against these.); That parents did not have the right to beat their children in an abusive, harmful way. That we should preserve the earth by polluting less and trying to make the world better for future generaitons.

Disagree? Show us the biblical passages.

Since most people are IGNORANT of history -- it is easy for you to make false statements with ease.

If you look at Christian history before the Enlightenment (and the introduction of secularism) you will find that faith dictated that humans had no worth or natural rights. Kings were appointed by God himself and were to have absolute powers, mirroring the divine hierarchy of God in heaven.

It was secularism that taught slavery and torture were bad (there is no commandment against these.); That parents did not have the right to beat their children in an abusive, harmful way. That we should preserve the earth by polluting less and trying to make the world better for future generaitons.

Disagree? Show us the biblical passages.

Since most people are IGNORANT of history -- sit is easy for you to make false statements with ease.

Mr. Gerson,

I was once a Christian -- but my studies of its history and origins convinced me it is mere superstition -- little different from belief in the old Greek Gods.

Many friends and acquaitances have implied they are more spiritual than me and that I should reconsider --

What a laugh. I need merely look at your actions (not your words) to see the truth.

You right wingers have created deaths and destruction in Iraq -- AND you have no moral qualms about it!!! Helping sick children is socialism to in your book too. Even Jesus wants to help the wealthy in your book.

One of my reasons for not wanting to backslid (believe in religion again) is the fear I might pronounce the "evil" you do under George Bush's leadership as --"good".

Ugh. I would have to turn off my brain for that and be a zomby. No thanks, I wish to make the world a better place for the next generation, not a worse one.

Note: I think there are some progressive Christians out there. I find them in the minority right now -- or at least, passive viz a viz the immoral right winger Christians.

Does anyone imagine for a second that Mr Gerson has the nuts to check in and read the comments that his column has inspired? I doubt it.

Only a few On Faith bloggers - Susan Jacoby, John Crossan et al - bother reading the comments of we lowly posters and responding to them. Most of the regular On Faith bloggers - Cal Thomas et al - treat their columns as a drive-by opportunity to spout RW and/or religious idiocies before heading off to spend their WaPo-earned fee at their local watering hole (and, no, you're not invited there, either).

It looks like Mr Gerson falls into this latter category. Why am I not surprised?

hi henry- i dont think thoreau held any religious beliefs- i know he was an abolitionist, and s darwin enthusiast.

i also didnt know who gerson is- and his argument isnt particularly compelling.

extreme secularism WAS the government of coercion in Turkey, until a few years ago with the election of tatip erdogan, who is an observant muslim, and the first PM to pray publily in office, and now abdullah gul has been elected as president, another actively practicing muslim (both with hijab wearing wives)

actually they have introduced a new focus on human rights, freedom of expression and religious freedom that was conspicuously absent under the militant secularist rule.

other than militancy, how would an all secular state enforce its rule of law?

you cant count on people to self govern themselves in any way (one of the actually positive functions of religion in society)

it definitely didnt work for 80 years in turkey.

the religious didnt go away, even though their religion was pretty much wiped out of their lives, disconnecting them from their past by changing the alphabet - a kid learning to read in 1925 couldnt read what was written in 1923!

im not sure what people mean when they say secularism.

many of the voices of the abolistionist movement were religious voices also, so thats not really a truism.

as a religious person, i never find it necessary to slam non-religious- its not really a competition

Mr Mark's citing the innocent blood on Gerson's hands coincides with this quote from Tim O;Brien's masterpiece The Things They Carried, which Pinsky quoted in today's NYT book review:

"a true war story is never moral. It does not instruct, nor encourage virtue, nor suggest proper models of human behavior, nor restrain men from doing the things that men have always done. If a story seems moral, do not believe it. If at the end of a war story you feel uplifted, or if you feel that some small bit of rectitude has been salvaged from the larger waste, then you have been made the victim of a very old and terrible lie."

All of Gerson's stories are War Stories, some literally, the others metaphorically.

When will we ever learn.

I find it very encouraging that Mr Gerson's column has not only been thoroughly dissected - it has also garnered no support from any On Faith posters whatsoever.

Except for the few knuckle-draggers one occasionally encounters on this blog, I find that most of the posters here make decent to excellent arguments and seem pretty well-educated. Because of that, I don't believe that Gerson's column is actually aimed at us.

No, I think his column is aimed at the media types who will buy Gerson's premise hook, line and sinker without doing even the tiniest bit of fact checking, and who will run with it as a story in their pundit gabfests. Gerson's fact-free right-wing message will be given the stamp of "objectivity" as the media types chortle that, "Michael Gerson's column - which appeared in the LIBERAL Washington Post - offers a clear-cut explanation that even the liberal media must acknowledge." Of course, we all know that the WP stopped being a liberal newspaper years ago, but that doesn't stop the media from trumpeting this wrong-headed sound bite along with the others they regularly fall back on (ie: the liberal media, Saddam had WMD).

And Gerson is making the pundit show rounds promoting his book. Chris Matthews pretty much took him apart on Hardball the other day, so Gerson resorted to his very best "but how could I lie, I'm a Christian" deer-in-the-headlights mode of excuse making for the obvious lies he wrote and continues to regurgitate over Iraq.

I wonder what it feels like to be Michael Gerson and to go through life with the blood of innocents fairly dripping from your hands? I wonder if Gerson is "heroic" enough of a conservative to address that issue in his new book.

Chris E: "it is altogether another to give space for misrepresenting secularism, including American history and principles, in the service of a religious viewpoint."

Or for WaPo to assess the quality of the heated response, or for Gerson to psych out the opposition.

Thanks for the background on Mr. Gerson, I didn't know who he was. I assumed the Washihgton Post was baiting us atheists with an outrageous article simply to generate a heated response. I had no idea it was providing a forum for a propagandist to hone his skills.

Washington Post, if you're interested in what kind of foundational ethics support secular government, why not ask as much, or publish an article to that effect? Why publish something that is so clearly a pack of lies? It's one thing to give space for the exploration of religious ideas, no matter how silly; it is altogether another to give space for misrepresenting secularism, including American history and principles, in the service of a religious viewpoint.

Chris: your usual incisive deconstruction of the lies and fantasies of "believers" like Mr Gerson, and of virtually everyone who was involved with the Bush administration (God the Father has those weapons of mass destruction: he is making a nucleur bomb).

It is obscene to credit Christianity with the cause of justice when one looks at in a balanced way.

For every Martin Luther King, there were 10,000 preachers who ignored civil rights or fought against it (I am sure they had NO idea that some of their parishioners were KKK members).

Just as their ancestors in the Christian ministry tacitly or explicitly supported slavery, as the Bible told them they should.

Gerson reminds me of Mary McCarthy's comment on Lillian Hellman: "every word she writes is s lie, including and and the."

Beware Gerson’s use of the terms “strict” and “rigid” applied to secularism. He’s trying to make secularism sound like a form of fundamentalism – an indication of the closed thinking of its adherents. Remember how successful the Bush administration was initially in gaining support for the Iraq war? How Osama bin Ladin morphed into Saddam? And it was OK to bomb Iraq, because “they killed 3,000 of our people on 9/11?”

Now he’s floating sound bites on rigid and strict secularism – to see how it works and to see if it’s even noticed.

Well, I finally noticed and would like others here to notice and respond. I think it’s an attempt to appeal to liberal Christians who would never fight like religious fundamentalists for more “faith-based” government, but might be able to work up some consternation about “militant” atheists presented as trying to upset the church/state balance in favor of atheism – clothed as a amorphous but scary-sounding “rigid” secularism. Watch out: secularism > rigid secularism > atheistic government that banishes religious expression.

So Mr. Gerson, if you’re reading, please drop this tactic. Please drop all attempts to confuse us and work against the country’s best interests. You’re very clever; please find ways to use your formidable skills in ways that do not do further harm to the country we all love.

I can imagine a world in the future where gods are seen as relics of our weird religious past.We are not yet quite ready,but getting there,especially since the religious insanity of September 11,2001,which no doubt prompted atheists to come out of the closet and add their voices to the current conversation on the relevance of religion.
Those of us who overcame, or avoided,religious indoctrination,are no longer comfortable being silent on this issue,which is the biggest issue of our time.
The supernatural world is the world of our imagination.We have to understand that our imaginings have nothing to do with reality.
The future of our civilization may depend on it.

"The central problem with a rigid secularism is simple: it would remove one of the main sources of social reform – the passion for justice – in American history."

Bullfeathers! The American government is DERIVED from the principle of social justice, which is precisely WHY it is secular. Moreover, if you look at just about any socially progressive movement in American history you will find it disproportionately populated with atheists. I refer you to Susan Jocoby's book Freethinkers.

When it comes to civil rights, its clear that the vast majority of religious influence was AGAINST it, al the way from slavery to today. Don't forget that the KKK is a Christian organization. Sure, black culture in America centers (centered, anyway) around the church, which was really the only social institution where blacks had their own voice, so it is no suprise that Martin Luther King came from there. But that's not to say that the church is a necessary source of social conscience. What about the voices of social conscience of the abolitionist movement? The woman's rights movement? Worker's rights movements? The anti-war movements? What about voices like Ingersol's? Emerson's?

Arminius

I love Christians like you. And Muslims like you. And secular humanists like you.

The US in its best instantiation endorses a separation of church and state. No "establishment" of religion, and freedom of you and me to believe or not believe as we choose without being guillotined.

You and I support that doctrine.

You and I think Gerson has his head lodged in an unfortunate orifice.

Christianity CAN (not always) lead to good morals. So can Hinduism and Secular Humanism and Islam.

And the constitution forbids the "establishment" - either de facto or de jure - of religion.

So you and I should believe whatever the heck we want, and let each other believe or not believe whatever the heck we want,

and explicitly label the Christian-centrism of Gerson as ignorant and unconstitional,

as you most properly do.

love
Henry

Arminius – I don’t doubt for a minute that many other liberal Christians feel much the same way you do. Could you get them to speak up more? I don’t mean just come to this forum and blast off at Gerson (but that’s a start). I mean be out there actively speaking up for separation of church and state and perpetuating the SECULAR democracy we all enjoy. Having recently been a liberal Christian, the only significant difference I see between them and atheists is that they (some of them, anyhow) believe in a supernatural supreme being and certain supernatural events and atheists do not.

However, when it comes to protecting our secular democracy, atheists and liberal (and moderate) Christians feel exactly the same way. Isn’t that right? So, how can we work together? What will it take for liberal Christians to actively dissociate from the likes of “fellow Christians” like Gerson and associate themselves with nice civic-minded atheists like me? How to get them to see that if they choose to be quiet Christians, they must be loud secularists.

Secularism. Why the problem with the application of this word? It means 'not religious'. Gerson, immersed in the religious right, seems to think that those who use this word mean to apply it to the entire nation: enforced non-belief. What utter mental pablum. What utter (long string of expletives) crap.

Secular, in this discussion, means a secular government, not a secular nation. Despite the yearnings of some non-believers, religion is not going away any time soon. And despite the desires of the militant religious right, the non-believers are here to stay.

Any of those two sides remember something called the First Amendment? Huh? Say WHAT? We all have to get along, and allow our respective beliefs? Yeah, deal with it.

What Gerson seems to fear is that there is some sort of conspiracy of atheists who are out to destroy religion. Does he also believe that Little Green Men from Mars assassinated JFK? Jeez, gimme a break. The fear of theocrats trying to take over is a bit more real. But neither one is gonna happen.

A secular government means that the MLKs will be welcome, because they only wanted laws changed, within the bounds of the Constitution, to promote liberty and equality. And a secular government also means that the Pat R's of the world will NOT be able to impose their religions on this country.

Yeah, ya got it right. I am a very pissed-off Liberal Christian. Deal with it.

Arminius

Gerson is a Bush speech-writer. He must be reaching out to the black population. They tend to be religious, yet vote predominantly democrat. As King was shot dead, the entire civil rights movement was born from the womb, as a child free. The birth of equality, 'I have a dream...' But there was an evil twin. He clings to his own through same-sex unions. He does not believe in anything but himself. And his sister questioned the right to abortion. To kill it before it is born. Good and evil.
The pastor of my church was removed by allegations of sexual abuse. The diocese is considering bankruptcy. This was a holy week, with all souls day packing the pews. The next great celebration will be Dec. 25th. People of faith recall a time when a prophet was born, and preached and debated the Jewish forums of the time. He was among humanity for 3 years, then tried, convicted and crucified. I believe in the Immaculate Conception, the Holy Ghost, and the communion of saints. My prayer is a humble request, 'deliver us from evil, oh Lord...'

"Strict secularism would mean not only no more Pat Robertsons but also no more Martin Luther Kings."

You can tell Gerson used to write for Bush, because this is a classic Bushism. It's patently untrue, of course, but you can't tell whether the statement is an intentional lie, willful ignorance, or the result of delusion.

If he was really interested in the truth, he wouldn't have to create a straw man argument like this. If the U.S. were a majority Muslim country, Evangelicals like Gerson would be demanding strict separation of Mosque and state.

If the republic survives their attempts at the theocracy, the day will come when people who believe as the religious right does now will be grateful the U.S. is a secular society.

"Strict secularism would mean not only no more Pat Robertsons but also no more Martin Luther Kings."

You can tell Gerson used to write for Bush, because this is a classic Bushism. It's patently untrue, of course, but you can't tell whether the statement is an intentional lie, willful ignorance, or the result of delusion.

If he was really interested in the truth, he wouldn't have to create a straw man argument like this. If the U.S. were a majority Muslim country, Evangelicals like Gerson would be demanding strict separation of Mosque and state.

If the republic survives their attempts at the theocracy, the day will come when people who believe as the religious right does now will be grateful the U.S. is a secular society.

Great link Mr Mark.
Glad you posted it.

One may read the Top 10 Lies told about Iraq in the run-up to the war here:

http://www.alternet.org/story/16274/

Most quotes are from the mouths of bush & cheney in lying words that were written and put into bush & cheney's pie hloles by none other than Michael Gerson, bush's chief speechwriter at the time.

Gerson is as big a liar as bush.

All Hail Victoria

thanks for adding thoreau to the
MLK Gandhi path.

which god did thoreau believe in?

love
Henry

yoyo

Sorry for butting in above,re Thomas Baum.
I was so excited to learn that there really is a God,
I just couldn't help myself.

YOYO

you say above;

"Secularism is simple.It assumes there are no gods.
Are we supposed to pretend there is a god
just so we can be more decent and kinder to each other?
I don't think so. We have to learn that we can be good without gods.
Our ancestors were obviously not up to it;
but it doesn't mean we aren't. We simply have to give it a try.
The only other choice is to go on pretending that there's a Big Policeman in the sky.
Even though such an idea is preposterous,and becoming more so,
as more and more of us are educated beyond such primitive thinking.
There is no god.Let's get over it,and try intelligently to live with it.
There is no other rational choice."

Thomas Baum responded;

TO YOYO AND THE REST OF HUMANITY:

"You wrote, "The only other choice is to go on pretending that there's a Big Policeman in the sky.".
The sad part of this statement is that it is what some of the people that don't know anything about God except for His Name think that He is. It doesn't matter what you believe or what I believe, believing something does not mean that it is The Truth.
I have met God and God is a Trinity and God is Love, Pure Love, a being of Pure Love. There is a difference between knowing and believing".

Lets stop you right there Thomas. You say you have personally MET Him?
How interesting.Most of the greatest brains on the planet have searched for Him for thousands of years.Others have argued that he doesn't exist,and wars have been fought over the Big Question.
Its always been the BIG QUESTION.
Its the BIG QUESTION because noone has ever seen him,and now you come along and say you've met Him.
Thanks for the info Tom. I for one believe you,and am relieved to know definitively that there really is a God.And I'm sure the rest of Humanity is grateful to you too.
Say Hi to Him for me Thomas,next time you see Him.

henry james- mlk was inspired by gandhi- gandhi was singularly inspired by henry david thoreau (its in his autobiography)

TO YOYO AND THE REST OF HUMANITY:

You wrote, "The only other choice is to go on pretending that there's a Big Policeman in the sky.".

The sad part of this statement is that it is what some of the people that don't know anything about God except for His Name think that He is. It doesn't matter what you believe or what I believe, believing something does not mean that it is The Truth.

I have met God and God is a Trinity and God is Love, Pure Love, a being of Pure Love. There is a difference between knowing and believing.

From what some of the people that call themselves "christians", one could easily conclude that God is a hate-filled, egotistical, revengeful piece of garbage, well that could not be further from the Truth.

The True, Living, Triune, Triumphant God is a searcher of hearts and minds, not of religious affiliations or lack thereof. It is important what you do and why you do it and also what you know. We have free will and we are responsible for what we do, whether we take personal responsibility for it or not.

Has anyone out there ever noticed how some people seem to say, well I am not as bad as, whoever, and has the audacity to call themselves "christian" when they are definitely a modern day "pharisee". When Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, walked this earth, He had a hard time getting thru to the pharisee's although He did get thru to some of them, and the pharisee's of His day didn't recognise themselves either, has things changed all that much?

To those people that call yourselves "christian" and are christian in name only and not even close to being a Christian in your heart or your mind, I recommend actually trying to be a Christian.

God has a Plan and has had His Plan since before Creation and God's Plan will come to Fruition. God's Plan is totally inclusive, It is for ALL OF HUMANITY, that is what really irks some of the "in name only" christians.

Jesus is Who He said that He is, God-Incarnate, He is not a second-rate prophet, Mohammed was deceived but I do not hold it against him, do you? As I have said before and I repeat: God wins, satan loses, a tie is unacceptable. By the way, Jesus chose to become a human being and what He did, He did out of Love for His Creation.

It seems that some of the people that say that they are "christian" and say that they believe in the bible conveniently, they will have to say why, tear out page one: "Let Us make man, humanity, in Our Image". Page one stands whether you like it or not.

Something for people to ponder: Did you ever consider that the six days of creation could be God days, lasting who knows how long? Jesus did say night is coming when no man can work, did He not? It also says on the seventh day, "God blest, rested and made Holy", something to think about even if you don't believe it, don't you think?

Take care, be ready, see you in the Kingdom.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Joe, you said:
"...a secular society doesn't demand that MLK give up his religious argument, let alone his religion. He can use it to appeal to anyone with whom it resonates, and that can include non-believers who simply subtract the faith premise and still agree with the message. a secular society is one whose government does not sanction, let alone incorporate, a religion. that's all. no more, no less."

I am in total agreement. Church and state must be separate.

Arminius

Unmitigated Balderdash, Mr Gerson

Christian-Centrist, historically ignorant, scientifically blind nostrums you give us here.

with the Obscenity of trying to ally yourself with Martin Luther King (who was profoundly influenced by Gandhi and the Jains by the way).

Mr Mark and Norrie have given us a short list of the problems with your effluvium here so i won't repeat.

Mr Gerson says we need to be Christian in order to have any values, or any outrage at injustice.

Huhnnnn??

Henry the Secular Humanist

Hi, Arminius, thanks so much for stopping by.

Good point - MLK's use of religious metaphor and his preacher's style certainly were effective, and although he was religious, one wouldn't have to be to use those to great effect. Metaphor and style exist outside of any belief structure.

Now see if you can rustle up some other moderates and liberals to add their voices to this pick-up choir.

Arminius: a secular society doesn't demand that MLK give up his religious argument, let alone his religion. He can use it to appeal to anyone with whom it resonates, and that can include non-believers who simply subtract the faith premise and still agree with the message. a secular society is one whose government does not sanction, let alone incorporate, a religion. that's all. no more, no less.

my faith in god leads me to be a more conscious person-
well, so what?
thats my business

E Fav,

Calm down, here's you a liberal Christian in the group now.

Now I don't like or trust Gerson any more than the rest of you. But I think he has a point about MLK, even though he stated it wrong. There is no reason that a reformer just has to be religious to be effective. But with MLK, religion was the driving force to finally free his people and make America better. Which he did, even though it cost him his life. Religion to him was what the military calls a 'force multiplier', an ironic term, I admit, given MLK's non-violence beliefs. But it was the ideal mix for him and his people, and it worked. I simply cannot imagine him being nearly as effective without it.

Incoming! Back to the bomb shelter! Don't forget the beer!

Arminius

Justice was a Greek Pagan Goddess, Themis...the embodiment of divine order, law and custom, in her aspect as the personification of the divine rightness of law. She is in front of most courts in this nation.

Justice is a human need, it has nothing to do with any religion. You need no god to fight for justice and equality, and throughout history there has been people of all races and beliefs that have fought for it.

terra

Drew: "You frightened all the Christians away"

Please, I'm trying my damndest, I mean my utmost, to recruit liberal Christians to stand up to Gerson and the fundies.

But it's Friday night. They're all out drinking, like regular folks. And on Saturday, they'll be raking leaves. And on Sunday, singing hymns (but no shoutin')... or reading the paper...or playing golf.

Mr. Gerson starts his piece with a bit of pure nonsense; he says:

"The central problem with a rigid secularism is simple: it would remove one of the main sources of social reform – the passion for justice – in American history."

To think you cannot have a commitment to justice, or to any other good cause for that matter, unless you believe religious myth is just wrong. And conversely, some of the biggest demagogues, hypocrites, and criminals have professed their piety, all the while pursuing immoral ends. Let Gerson profess his belief and go out to do good works, but he has no right to falsely aver, or even imply, that others who don't share his beliefs can't or are less likely to be doing good. The Founders, informed by bloody tumultuous history, feared that people like Gerson would be proscribing religious tests for citizens, so they specifically barred the state establishment of religion. It's called enlightenment. And if you are enlightened, you don't need the likes of Gerson judging you by some sectarian measure of piety.

Maybe, George, you would better off telling your daughters the dangers of premarital sex, drug use, unethical politicians, having good credit and the like. Whatever God you believe in (or none at all), will appreciate it. The void appreciates my great credit score.

The secular position makes no claim on the truth of any religion. It is theistically neutral and only asserts that government must not be used to influence religion and religion must not be allowed to influence government. In so doing, secularism protects all religions from being overwhelmed by any and all other religions.

Only by ensuring that our government is never allowed to show favoritism for one religion over another can we guarantee real freedoms for all religions. Are we a Christian nation that tolerates other religions or a secular nation that accepts all religions?

Mr Gerson was just on Hardball, regurgitating the lies used by bush to get us into war in Iraq.

It was a pathetic performance by any stretch of the imagination.

But, Gerson has a new book to sell, so it's off to the TV circuit.

Of course Mr. Gerson used to be a speechwriter for George W. Bush.

This essay shows why: it's utter nonsense.

Secularism (strict, rigid, or vanilla) is not an entity that exists or acts in American politics or government,

To believe that it does, is to create a florid fantasy on the order of Bill O'Reily's bubbilicious delusion of the existence of a nefarious "War on Christmas" started by a similarly nonexistent band of evildoers known as "Secular Progressives".

If Mr. Gerson should somehow become unavailable to write another column, the Post can easily find a substitute by going down to St. Elisabeth's and recruiting a writer manque out of his padded room.

George Evanick
Sorry ,I see I spelled your name wrong,copying others' misspelling of your surname.
I hate it when that happens.

E.Favorite;
Now see what you've gone and done?
You frightened all the Christians away,
now we got nobody to play with.
Thanks a lot E.Favorite...

Becoming strictly secular drastically improves our chances of living in a peaceful society. The Pat Robertsons and the Usama Bin Ladens of the world feel that there religious way, is the ONLY way. Because there is no empircal evidence for the existence of God, Pat Robertson and Bin Laden should not be public figures. Religion should only exist at the inividual level. Personal beliefs, are exactly that: personal. Secularism is a rational, empircal based philosophy that considers the public good. If you really think about it, secularism is a beautiful thing. It reflects our higher nature as humans.
I am tired of the Bill O'Reillys and the Michael Gersons of the world denigrating secularism. As for MLK, remember, his famous speech at the Washington Monument, recorded for history to rememeber and marvel at. All of that technology that made it possible, the recordings, the microphone, everything., were invented by evidence-based, rationale human beings. Scientific thinkers, secularists.

CHRISTIANS - WHERE ARE YOU?

PLEASE COME: EXPRESS YOUR VIEWS! DEFEND YOUR FAITH!

Moderate and liberal Christians especially welcomed (fundamentalists welcomed too, but I think I've pretty much heard what you have to say.)

Mr Mark: "If faith got you through the day but your faith was directed at a non-existent entity, then did you do right even though your faith was misdirected?"

George said "faith" but maybe he also meant "fear" of retribution. People are often fearful of things that don't really exist. It's not healthy and people with such fears are encouraged to seek psychological assistance.

Unless it's fear of God, of course, some people still consider that to be healthy - beneficial, even.

Note to George's daughters: I don't know when you'll be reading this, but I do hope that people, especially adults, are no longer as fearful of invisible supernatural beings as they were in 2007.

CHRISTIANS BEWARE; AVOID THIS SITE; ATHEISTS EVERYWHERE!

G Evanick writes:

You: "And by the way, if God doesn't exist, then whom should I put my faith in - you?"

Gaby responded:

I: Why do you have to put your faith in anything? Because you were brain-washed as a kid that one must have faith?"

Good point, Gaby.

George - see if you can put yourself in the frame of mind to go with this hypothesis: assume that god doesn't exist.

If he doesn't exist, then by what power did you lead a moral life? If faith got you through the day but your faith was directed at a non-existent entity, then did you do right even though your faith was misdirected? If so, did faith actually have anything to do with it at all? If there is no god, isn't the reality that you had faith in yourself and that's what led you to do the right thing?

As an atheist, I believe that you are doing the right thing because you're doing what humans usually do, with or without a belief in god.

So, who needs god?

George Evenick. You ask...

"... if God really doesn't exist and religious people are so stupid, what are you so afraid of?"

Well 9/11 for one thing. Then George Bush's brain for another.Then the whole wackiness of supernatural thinking,which contradicts everything we know about reality,and retards scientific development,and general intelligent discourse on the cosmos,and evolution (ie.intelligent design)not to mention the stem cell research.
Enough already.I fear that some religious wacko somewhere is going to blow us all up one of these days.Its hard to fight the nonsense of Islam with the nonsense of Christianity.We have to give up on supernatural beliefs,and take it from there.
I like the idea of religion in schools being replaced by philosophy. Makes sense to me.

I don't agree; king's humanity would have driven him to seek human justice; there was no need to claim some divine justification! Robertsons however would certainly diminish without the claim of divine ordination to rant and rave his hatred of humanity! Pat abhors the human characteristics which provide human causes for any humane actions and claims that God supports the inhumane actions of the Religious Right, their ordained Furher, George, and his evil sidekick Dick!

George Evanick:

You: " And there's no need to express any fear; I promise I won't revise anything and "brain-wash them.""

I: It all depends which posts you are including and which you are omitting. Plus I am certain that th brain-washing is already in full swing. You say for your daughters to read when they are a little older. How old would that be? The brain-washing usually begins when a child starts to speak, ala those little prayers at bedtime, bible school, church, etc.

You: "And by the way, if God doesn't exist, then whom should I put my faith in - you?"

I: Why do you have to put your faith in anything? Because you were brain-washed as a kid that one must have faith?

Drew;
What an idea!! Teaching philosophy in grade school instead of religion.O what a pipedream.
I too used to wonder why school never mentioned the great thinkers too much,and kept harping on God,(in the school that I attended).
I found Aristotle on my own,in a Penguin paperback in a used book store when I was 21 or 22.
I devoured it,and never looked back.Philosophy makes all the sense that religion never made.

EFavorite;
I totally agree with your comments of 12;13pm.
Except i would perhaps check on the squadron of angels to see if they were real,fake or virtual angels.If I was convinced they were both ethereal and real (ignore the contradiction in terms) I would accept them as actual,and change my whole life,and my whole way of thinking.
The trouble is,it is never going to happen,because there are no angels,no gods,and no supernatural world;and the thought is completely ridiculous.
I'm sure you agree

George Evenick;
Hi George.Relax.You seem most uptight about the comments above. Most of us atheists were once Christians of one stripe or another,and got over it;and you could too.(to use a Colbertism)
I feel for your daughters.They are doomed to be indoctrinated it would seem,no matter what you call it.
Why don't you let your offspring choose for themselves what to believe about gods,existence and the supernatural? Why push into their heads primitive mumbo-jumbo that is almost certainly misguided?
After all George,as 'far as we know', there are no gods.
If you insist on keepin a compendium for their edification,you might want to call it
"Open Minds; Thoughts of Those Who Resisted Religious Indoctrination."
Actually George,it seems like a wonderful idea;and I dare you to do it. It would counteract your indoctrination in a very fair way. You would at least be showing them what the opposition believe,
and do them the world of good.
Most religious parents would rather their children not know about the existence of atheists. So I hope you follow through on that wonderful commitment. Your daughters would grow up to be very special.

Talk about a ridiculous straw man. No MLK in a secular society? why not? A secular society is merely one in which no religious authority (as such) is given an official role in the governing process. Any member of the governance is perfectly free to let their faith inform their political actions (although they strictly shouldn't - and instead vote based on what's best for a society that includes persons who don't share their faith - it's tolerated). And for goodness sake, a private citizen can take any position on what people or government should do using any religious or secular argument they believe will be persuasive. Secular folks can agree with MLK and be motivated to pursue his goals without subscribing to his faith. The whole point of preaching is to move people to search themselves for their personal motivation, not to get them to adopt yours. We secularists just want religious folks who get political majorities from time to time to honor our constitution's separation of church and state.

George Evanick: "Speaking of fear; if God really doesn't exist and religious people are so stupid, what are you so afraid of?"

Well,...

1. God really does exist, and he's pretty angry about hate, bigotry, wars, and general lack of brotherly love being promoted in his name.

2. If hateful, religious bigots actually do manage to hijack our society and impose their "moral law" above our system of laws, they will persecute feminists, gays, artists and the irreverent.

George Evanick: "I want to thank all the faithless contributors for sharing their thoughts here."

My pleasure, George. Who knows, your daughters might read it differently than you do.

Meanwhile, could you please explain what you mean by our "evil cause?"

Thanks

Below is an unpublished letter to the editor I wrote in response to a Gerson column in the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/12/AR2007071201620.html

“In his 13 July 2007 column, “What Atheists Can’t Answer,” Michael Gerson says he suspects “…that a certain kind of skeptic would remain skeptical even after a squadron of angels landed on his front lawn.” I completely agree. I also have enough confidence in 21st century rationality to think that most religious believers would be just as likely as their atheist neighbors to take one or more of the following actions:

a) Check their meds and/or contact a mental health professional.

b) Call the police. Squadrons, after all, tend to be armed, in this case, probably with swords.

c) Lock their doors, pull the shades and stay inside until the angelic squadron just disappears.”

=========================

It looks like no letters were published in response to the article the print edition (The customary link to letters does not accompany the online article), although there are 66 pages of email responses on the Post website. I thought my response was pretty cogent and so am happy for this opportunity for people, especially Gerson, to see it and think about it.

I want to thank all the faithless contributors for sharing their thoughts here. I'm collecting them for a compendium I'll encourage my daughters to read when they're older. I'll use your words to defeat your evil cause. And there's no need to express any fear; I promise I won't revise anything and "brain-wash them." Speaking of fear; if God really doesn't exist and religious people are so stupid, what are you so afraid of? Furthermore, if stupid religious people can exert so much power over this world, what does that say about Atheism? Is it also just another weak religion? Perhaps one of you critically thinking Atheists could help come up with a title. I'm considering "The Godless Mind." What do you think? And by the way, if God doesn't exist, then whom should I put my faith in - you? I'm not impressed.

George Evanick

I'm with YOYO. If the truth is that there is no God,what do we do now? Can we not adjust? Or do we have to go on pretending that somebody up there is running things,when it would seem there isn't?
The conversation has to be-what do we do now?
We could go on brainwashing our children into believing there's a God,or we could start a whole new paradigm by not brainwashing them,but teaching philosophy instead,starting with Aristotle's ethics,then on to Plato,and Socrates,and on from there.
How interesting and exciting that could be.What a brave new world we could kick-start.
Even as a teenager,when I 'found' philosophy,I wondered why it wasn't taught in grade school.
Real philosophy makes much more sense that all the godtalk,the kids would love it.

Sure, if a "strict secularism" eliminates Pat Robertsons from the national conversation, then that is a loss, even for the strictly secular.

But Gerson would have us believe that to accomodate the Martin Luther Kings, the alternative of "strict secularism" should be an a religiously based "standard of values above the political order." Very, very dangerous ... and unnecessary, thanks to our Constitution. (Of course Gerson and his former employers do seem to prefer that the Constitution didn't exist -- that is if they actually realize that it does.)

Thankfully, most people can see through this chaff.

“But strict secularism would mean not only no more Pat Robertsons but also no more Martin Luther Kings.”

Really? Why is that? Assuming “strict secularism” includes freedom of speech, both Robertson and King would still be heard. Are you saying King would have had no moral authority without religion? Don’t think so. He used religion to make his points, but his message was about freedom and justice – very secular notions, not always found in the bible. In contrast, Roberson’s message of hate and exclusion is rife in the Bible, but absent in the laws of the secular democracy in which we still thankfully live.

Secularism is simple.It assumes there are no gods.Are we supposed to pretend there is a god just so we can be more decent and kinder to each other?
I don't think so. We have to learn that we can be good without gods.Our ancestors were obviously not up to it;but it doesn't mean we aren't. We simply have to give it a try.
The only other choice is to go on pretending that there's a Big Policeman in the sky.Even though such an idea is preposterous,and becoming more so,as more and more of us are educated beyond such primitive thinking.
There is no god.Let's get over it,and try intelligently to live with it.
There is no other rational choice.

Gerson writes:

"Are we really so enlightened and advanced that religious conscious is no longer needed to call attention to the weak and oppressed?"

Yes, we are. Sadly, politics and religion too often get in the way of our better selves, often in tandem with one another.

"Are we really so close to the ideal of justice that a higher conception of divine justice can be banished from public debate?"

Can one give their children gifts without attributing the giving to Santa Claus? Yes, we should have moved beyond the idea of "divine justice" centuries ago.

"Every society needs a standard of values that stands above the political order, or the political order becomes absolute, and progress toward justice becomes impossible."

Do you not realize that religions are political movements, even in their purest form? Our American Constitution is NOT a religious document, neither does it reflect a religious "standard of values." Our Constitution stands above political order, even when it is under assault from enemies within - ie: bush and his enablers.

Sorry, but your column is written from a viewpoint of childish fear and displays an amazing lack of confidence in our Constitutional government, not to mention a lack of trust in the abilities of We The People to do things right.