In Right Wing Land--second star to the right and straight on til morning--little boys never grow up and logic is for
sissies. This morning's Washington Times is running an editorial claiming that support for the Matthew Shepard Act is proof that Democrats have nothing but contempt for the United States military. Good luck in following that logic.
Ted Kennedy says the hate crimes measure is included in the new Defense Department spending bill because the bill deals with terrorism--and hate crimes are domestic terrorism and should fall under the jurisdiction of the Justice Department and Homeland Security. Kennedy believes that Homeland Security has a clear obligation to the American people to pay as much attention to domestic terrorism as it does to foreign terrorism. Furthermore, there is nothing odd about this since the Justice Department is already charged with investigating and prosecuting domestic terrorism--or hate crimes--based on religion and race. But according to Right Wing Land logic, mutilating or murdering someone because they are black or Jewish is terrorism, but doing the same to a gay American is fulfilling one of God's commandments.
I suspect that Matthew Shepard and the hundreds of gay men and women who have been murdered or mutilated by domestic terrorists for no other reason than their sexual orientation would agree with Ted Kennedy. After all, if you are brutally killed for being gay by a Christian Fundamentalist with an American passport or you are brutally killed for being American by an Islamic fundamentalist with a green card or a student visa, you likely don't see much of a difference as your body is planted six feet under.
Of course, there is a difference. The Islamic fundamentalists are waging war against a foreign power, while the domestic terrorists are committing acts of treason, betraying the principles of freedom and the Constitution that our troops in Iraq die for daily.
In fact, contrary to the logic spilled on to the editorial page of The Washington Times, one could argue that a bill designed to fund the war on terrorism should be more focused on the greater danger of domestic Christian fundamentalism which has achieved much more success than the Islamic fundamentalists when it comes to assaulting our civil rights, the Constitution and the free society that the President of the United States is bound by his of office to protect. If George W. Bush vetoes the Defense spending bill because of the Matthew Shephard Act he will not only have shown his homophobia, he will have betrayed his oath of office; he will have stomped on the Bill Of Rights in ways that Osama bin Laden can only dream about..
Network: 


























Comments:
(4)Add a comment
Monday 01 October
By jam
We should not look for reason and thinking from the Right. When one believes one does not have to think, that is the beauty of blind faith.
We all should be afraid, very afraid...our democracy is being replaced by a theocracy...
(see theocracywatch.org)
ciao,
Reply
Monday 01 October
By g.woodworth
I consider myself to be on the philosophical right -- to some degree -- though probably not as this last poster would define it. Nonetheless, I define myself that way. But I do not in any way identify with the "religious right" which I consider to be an ampediment and an embarassment. Yes, you're right, you can't expect reason and thinking from them (the religous fundies). And I agree that we should all be very afraid of our democracy being subverted and twisted into a theocracy. But I also wish to point out that one can find rigid, unthinking fanaticism on the far left too. In fact, I find the left-wing fanatics just as unappealing as the right wing ones. They will tolerate no challenge to their theories which are, for them, the equivalent of religious dogma. They are deaf to all reason and will listen to no arguments, shouting down their opponents as "fascists" or "bigots" or whatever is their faborite bugaboo. Trying to reason with either mentality - fanatical Leftist or fanatical Rightist - is trustrating or impossible because you are confronting what are essentially belief systems rather than rational opinions. True, the Right tends to come to these opinions more often through religious channels,but the Left can be religiously motivated too, though with quite a different ideology (providing "sanctuary" for illegal aliens, etc.) But there is no fanatic more tenacious than a devout Marxist. And probably more harm has been done in the world by the Jacobins of the Left than the less efficient fanatics of the Right.
So, I advocate "moderation in all things", and try always to keep an open mind. We can never hope to know it all and should always be receptive to new information. Religious (theistic or not) which are based on trusting and dogma, discourase questioning and emphasize the importance of blind belief. I would have to include the more fanatical leftists in this category.
Reply
Monday 01 October
By g.woodworth
I consider myself to be on the philosophical right -- to some considerable degree -- though probably not as this last poster would define me. Nonetheless, I define myself that way. But in no way do I identify with the "religious right" which I consider to be an impediment and an embarrassment. They are just one faction. Yes, you're correct, you can't expect reason and thinking from them (the religious fundamentalists); and their minds are so closed that they are quite beyond reach of reason. I also agree with you that we should all be very afraid of our democracy being subverted and twisted into a theocracy.
But I also wish to point out that one can find rigid, unthinking fanaticism on the far left too. In fact, I find the left-wing fanatics just as unappealing as the right wing ones. They are the ones who drove me from the Left to the Right. They will tolerate no challenge to their theories which are, for them, the equivalent of rigid religious dogma. They are deaf to all contrary reason and will listen to no opinions in conflict with their own. If someone dares disagree they will furiously shouting down all opponents as "fascists" or "bigots" or whatever is their favorite bugaboo.
Trying to reason with either mentality - fanatical Leftist or fanatical Rightist - is frustrating or simply impossible because you are confronting what are essentially belief systems rather than rational opinions. True, the Right tends to come to these opinions more often through religious channels, but the Left can be religiously motivated too, though with quite a different ideology (Liberation Theology; providing "sanctuary" for illegal aliens, etc.). Indeed, there is no fanatic more tenacious than a devout Marxist (or a Marx-influenced Christian). And probably more harm has been done in the world by the resolute Jacobins of the Left, convinced of their utter moral righteousness, than by the somewhat less efficient fanatics of the Right.
So, I advocate "moderation in all things". And try always to keep an open mind. We can never hope to know it all and should always be receptive to new information. Who knows? ... our opinions may change! What I know is only what I know RIGHT NOW. And what I know absolutely FOR CERTAIN is nothing. I can only trust my best judgement, based on my present knowledge.
I do understand that it is comforting for people who believe in the Koran, the Bible, Das Kapital (or whatever sacred scripture they subscribe to) to believe that they have the absolute word of Truth and thus don't need to bother thinking, because their holy book or holy prophet has already done it for them. Formula religion, that's what it is. Religious fanatics (god-centered or not) whose cherished tenets are based on trust and dogma, discourage questioning and emphasize the virtue of blind belief. As Marxism is simply a new, modern, non-theistic religion, I would have to include most of the more fanatical leftists in this category. Indeed, I would include anyone whose opinions are set in stone and not open to question, but are based on some "holy" book or dogmatic ideology, rather than having to go through the painful process of thinking things out for one's self.
Ciao also ....
Reply
Monday 01 October
By g.woodworth
I consider myself to be on the philosophical right -- to some considerable degree -- though probably not as this last poster would define it. Nonetheless, I define myself that way. But in no way do I identify with the "religious right" which I consider to be an impediment and an embarrassment. They are just one faction. Yes, you're correct, you can't expect reason and thinking from them (the religious fundamentalists); and their minds are so closed that they are quite beyond reach of reason. I also agree with you that we should all be very afraid of our democracy being subverted and twisted into a theocracy.
But I also wish to point out that one can find rigid, unthinking fanaticism on the far left too. In fact, I find the left-wing fanatics just as unappealing as the right wing ones. They are the ones who drove me from the Left to the Right. They will tolerate no challenge to their theories which are, for them, the equivalent of rigid religious dogma. They are deaf to all contrary reason and will listen to no opinions in conflict with their own. If someone dares disagree they will furiously shouting down all opponents as "fascists" or "bigots" or whatever is their favorite bugaboo.
Trying to reason with either mentality - fanatical Leftist or fanatical Rightist - is frustrating or simply impossible because you are confronting what are essentially belief systems rather than rational opinions. True, the Right tends to come to these opinions more often through religious channels, but the Left can be religiously motivated too, though with quite a different ideology (Liberation Theology; providing "sanctuary" for illegal aliens, etc.). Indeed, there is no fanatic more tenacious than a devout Marxist (or a Marx-influenced Christian). And probably more harm has been done in the world by the resolute Jacobins of the Left, convinced of their utter moral righteousness, than by the somewhat less efficient fanatics of the Right.
So, I advocate "moderation in all things". And try always to keep an open mind. We can never hope to know it all and should always be receptive to new information. Who knows? ... our opinions may change! What I know is only what I know RIGHT NOW. And what I know absolutely FOR CERTAIN is nothing. I can only trust my best judgement, based on my present knowledge.
I do understand that it is comforting for people who believe in the Koran, the Bible, Das Kapital (or whatever sacred scripture they subscribe to) to believe that they have the absolute word of Truth and thus don't need to bother thinking, because their holy book or holy prophet has already done it for them. Formula religion, that's what it is. Religious fanatics (god-centered or not) whose cherished tenets are based on trust and dogma, discourage questioning and emphasize the virtue of blind belief. As Marxism is simply a new, modern, non-theistic religion, I would have to include most of the more fanatical leftists in this category. Indeed, I would include anyone whose opinions are set in stone and not open to question, but are based on some "holy" book or dogmatic ideology, rather than having to go through the painful process of thinking things out for one's self.
Ciao also ....
Reply