Murder Inc, and the New World Disorder
At first blush, one would think that the Republican Party is making much ado about nothing with their staged outrage over the decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his 9/11 conspirators in the U.S. Federal court. Considering the macho stance that they generally take against Al Qaeda, one would think they'd say "bring it on", and be anxious to drag the conspirators back to the scene of the crime to face the consequences of their horrific act. After all, being forced to answer for their crimes before the people of New York represents the epitome of poetic justice. Read More »
So, perhaps we should start posting little facts to keep the more combative members of this site informed. That way we can help them to either make better arguments, or perhaps we'll even persuade them to our side. Think its impossible? Well, one must remember even the most belligerent trolls come here for a reason: they must be confused or insecure about their own beliefs and they must be curious about ours.
So let this be the first installment of a series of posts sharing information that will hopefully educate us all.
Claim: most of the Founding Fathers were "Deists."
Fact: True
Question: but what exactly is Deism anyway?
The implications of Isaac Newton's physical theories of mechanics, which treated the universe as if it were a machine (hence the term "mechanics") built by a creating god yet running on its own principles independent of the interference of the creating god (though Newton never denied that God couldn't interefere, just that he didn't), encompassed much more than physical change and movement. Soon other areas of experience came to be regarded as mechanistic and independent of divine interference: social structures, economics, politics, and so forth. Each of these areas could be understood and manipulated solely through rational methods, since they operated through consistent and orderly laws and principlesLINK
The philosophes of mid-eighteenth century France developed this mechanistic view of the universe into a radically revised version of Christianity they called deism. Drawing on Newton's description of the universe as a great clock built by the Creator and then set in motion, the deists among the philosophes argued that everything—physical motion, human physiology, politics, society, economics—had its own set of rational principles established by God which could be understood by human beings solely by means of their reason. This meant that the workings of the human and physical worlds could be understood without having to bring religion, mysticism, or divinity into the explanation. The Deists were not atheists; they simply asserted that everything that concerned the physical and human universes could be comprehended independently of religious concerns or explanations.
People who don't really understand what Deism is like to use it as a way to claim the Founders saw America as a decidedly Christian nation, and that there should be no separation between church and state.
The fact is quite the opposite.
The Founders, inspired by the Philosophes of the Enlightement, believed that religion and laws should absolutely be separate. They also believed religion was a bad influence on societies and was the cause for much war and suffering. They believed in the power of rational thought, laws, and government, to improve the quality of life through scientific progress, rational behavior, and improved social structures (a.k.a. what conservatives lamely call "entitlement programs").
So I hope that clears it up for anyone who is curious or confused about the Founders intentions, and about what Deism means.
Before I go, I'll leave you all with one more definition of Deism
Deism: Deism is a term coined in the philosophe movement and applies to two related ideas: a) religion should be reasonable and should result in the highest moral behavior of its adherents; b) the knowledge of the natural world and the human world has nothing to do whatsoever with religion and should be approached completely free from religious ideas or convictions.Best wishes to my fellow patriotic Democrats, and thanks for all that you do to make the world a better place.
Best,
D. Tree
The Teabaggers Want their Country Back - Preferably, Circa 1860
I just saw another one of those videos. You know the ones - the kind that Fox "News" loves to show of the clueless teabagger with tears in her eyes, complaining that she wants her country back. They're designed to tug at our heartstrings, but they have just the opposite effect on me. What I see is a social bigot who thinks the world is about to come to an end because Barack Obama is the president instead of the White House butler. Read More »
It's Time for America to Stop Claiming to be a Great Nation, and Start Becoming One
I want to begin this article by thanking Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her responsible Democratic colleagues, and one Republican, for standing up for the American people in their historic passage of the health-care bill in the house. I've bitterly criticized Speaker Pelosi in the past, and I'm still smarting over her "impeachment is off the table" stance during the Bush administration, but she stepped up to the plate in a very big way in this, the most significant legislation that the house has pasted in a generation. So thank you, Madam speaker.
But that said, now is the time for progressives, Democratic supporters, and all citizens who care about a congress "of the people" to also step up to the plate - not by weeping and begging the Liebercrats in the Senate to do what's right by the people, but by showing them the consequences of not doing so. Read More »
Could GOP Leaders Possibly Believe Their Own Rhetoric?
Is it possible that Republicans truly believe that President Obama is both a socialist, and a fascist, who wasn't born in the United States, and that providing affordable health-care to American families is a plot to destroy America? Could they possibly believe that Dick Cheney kept America safe, or that George Bush was protecting the American way of life? And is it possible that they consider their incendiary rhetoric simply innocent speech, and don't recognize that during this time of severe hardship they could very easily incite insurrection within the country? It's not likely. Read More »
Could Obama Fall Victim to a Change We Can't Believe in?
At this point Obama's presidency could go either way - he can either become one of the greatest presidents this country has ever known, or go down as an exciting experiment that went bad. It's all up to how he handles the expectations of Independents. Read More »
Joe Lieberman: To Hell with the American People
Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) has announced that if the senate includes a public option to healthcare reform he's prepared to side with the Republicans in a filibuster to prevent the bill from coming up for a vote. In other words, he's prepared to fight to block the will of the American people.
This is the same Joe Lieberman that Democrats sweat blood and treasure to support in his bid for vice president in the 2000 election; the same Joe Lieberman who signed a pledge with seven Republicans and six other Democrats not to filibuster any of Bush's judicial nominations in 2005; and the very same Joe Lieberman whose own Connecticut constituents polled 21 to 68% (a 47% margin) in favor of a public option. But he doesn't care about all of that. All he cares about is protecting his cash cow - the insurance industry. Read More »
ODE TO A BLEEDING HEART
The one factor that contributed most to the downfall of the Democratic Party during during the seventies and eighties was allowing conservative Republicans to seize control of the political rhetoric. The Democrats simply sat back and allowed themselves, their constituency and their agenda to be redefined in the eyes of the American people by conservative "spin doctors" without rebuttal. As a direct result, they've allowed the term "liberal" to become a bad word in the political lexicon. Read More »
Conservatives Waking Up in Droves
Well, it seems that the GOP is finally coming into its own. Both its numbers, and its rhetoric, reflect that its rapidly becoming more of a cult than a political party. Recent polls indicate that now only 20% of the American people will even admit to being Republican these days. That's down from 32% in November. If its current rate of decline continues, after the 2010 election there won't be enough Republicans left in Washington to throw a card party - and that's with good reason.
History doesn't lie, at least, until Republicans get a hold to it. But with their desperate attempt to regain power at any cost, this current crop of GOP 'leaders' have inadvertently betrayed their true agenda - to promote the interest of big business at the expense of the American people. Every initiative that they champion is transparently designed to do just that. Read More »
A preliminary estimate from the Congressional Budget Office projects that the House Democrats' health care plan that includes a public option would cost $871 billion over 10 years, according to two Democratic sources.
CBO also found that the Democrats' bill reduces the deficit in the first 10 years.
Just more evidence confirming what we already know: offering a public option to small businesses and the uninsured saves the most money.
The argument for reforming health insurance with a public option is that its better for the pocketbook. This is not about ideology, its about saving the most money and reducing the deficit. Anyone who cars about fiscal responsibility should be 100% on board with this reform.
Spread the word high and low!
And in case you are worried, don't be. We ARE going to pass health care reform. And then we will pass every other piece of overdue legislation one by one.
The Republican Party is done. Things will never return to the way they were. By the time we are done with our work, we will be firmly in the 21st Century - with our eyes on the future, not the past.
GOP 'Patriots' Strike America Once Again
My computer is still warm from my last article where I pointed out that the GOP is no longer conservative, and has become anti-American. Now, reinforcing my position, they've struck out against America again. In last week's column, "Limbaugh-Beck and the GOP Patriots Against America", I pointed out that you can say what you will about true conservatives, but they are fiercely patriotic, and will ALWAYS, support America, regardless to what the circumstances.
But this current group of renegade Republicans are clearly demonstrating not only that they're not true conservatives, but they're not even loyal Americans. With every day that passes it becomes increasingly clear that their only concern is making money, regaining power, and accommodating their own self-interest, and they're more than willing to throw America under the bus to achieve those goals. Read More »
Limbaugh-Beck and the GOP Patriots Against America
If anyone had any doubt about whether or not the GOP has become anti-American, all doubt should now be laid to rest. Rush Limbaugh, the titular head of the Republican Party, slipped into an altered state of bliss after hearing the news that the United States lost its bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics. The man was completely beside himself with glee. God only knows what would have happened if we'd also been attacked - his body fluids would've had to be cleaned off the studio floor. I watched the video of Limbaugh's antics over and over again in total disbelief. It's literally unbelievable what's happened to the Republican Party. Read More »
The Republican Agenda: Keep America Ignorant and Miserable, at any Cost
The Republican Party is a coalition of three separate constituencies with confluent interests. The first group is made up of traditional conservatives. These are highly patriotic Americans who believe in limited government, the primacy of the people over government, and fiscal responsibility. But the other two groups that have coalesced within the GOP are much more malevolent - international business interests, and social bigots.
It is the former of these two, international business, that controls the GOP. It's made up of highly educated individuals with huge resources and plenty of clout - and they use every bit of their resources and clout to manipulate what has become their citizen army - the social bigots. The social bigots are the people we see armed to the teeth at presidential speeches, disrupting townhall meetings, and fighting against their own interests. In short, these are the Joe the Plumbers of the world. Read More »
The Religious Right: A Threat to America
When I became of age one of the first things I did was to reassess all of my previous beliefs and attitudes. Thereafter, I discarded as invalid anything that didn't stand up to logical and objective scrutiny, because even at that young age, I'd lived long enough to recognize that most of the problems in this world are a direct result of our failure to re-examine our illogical views of reality. Most religious zealots not only fail to go through that process, but refuse to as a matter of religious doctrine. It is due to that kind of zealotry, along with their doctrinal obligation against even considering the fact that they might be zealots, that makes the religious right a clear and present danger to both the United States, and the world. Read More »
The Ironies of 911
While viewing America's solemn commemoration of the eighth anniversary of 911, I began to reflect upon its many ironies. The very first thing that came to mind was Dick Cheney's claim that the Bush administration's policies have kept us safe. My second thought was, he must think we're crazy - and far too many of us are. Read More »
Lofty Ideals are Only as Meaningful as the Backbone that Supports Them
Is it just me, or is anyone else curious about how the GOP managed to suspend the United States Constitution, thrust us headlong into a costly and unjustified war, ravage the global economy, and destroy America's moral credibility throughout the world, while the Democrats, even after being handed the White House and a huge majority in both houses of congress, can't even manage to pass a healthcare bill that would benefit every family in America?
If like me, you've been curious about this issue, scratch your head no more. The answer is screaming at us right before our eyes, but like the angry medicare recipient boisterously demonstrating against socialism, we simply refused to believe our lying eyes. Read More »
We must immediately stop issuing drivers licenses, passports, immigration papers of any sort, or any government identification or registration instruments to any person who even partially covers their face.
Further, under the hate crime laws, it should be a felony punishable by five years imprisonment at hard labor to refuse to shake hands because a person is a woman.
It is time for our government to stop all this ridiculous political correctness of not wanting to offend muslims. We must grow a spine and stand up to extremists. All people are equal, and we cannot and must not tolerate any practices that demean women in any way.
I am disappointed in our President that European countries are taking action to recognize the sanctity of womanhood before our own President does.
President Obama, please exercise leadership in banning the burka, banning the refusal to shake hands with women, and all other extremist traditions that demean women.
Further, all non-profits must be required to ban burkas from their officers, employees, Boards of Directors or Trustees.
Eveery educational institution, from preschool through graduate school, must ban burkas from their premises.
President Nicolas Sarkozydeclared Monday that the Islamic burqa is not welcome in France, branding the face-covering, body-length gown as a symbol of subservience that suppresses women's identities and turns them into "prisoners behind a screen."
But there was a mixed message in the tough words: an admission that the country's long-held principle of ethnic assimilation -- which insists that newcomers shed their traditions and adapt to French culture -- is failing because it doesn't give immigrants and their French-born children a fair chance.
In a high-profile speech to lawmakers in the historic chateau at Versailles, Sarkozy said the head-to-toe Muslim body coverings were in disaccord with French values -- some of the strongest language against burqas from a European leader at a time when some Western officials have been seeking to ease tensions with the Muslim world.
"In our country, we cannot accept that women be prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity," Sarkozy said to extended applause of the lawmakers gathered where French kings once held court.
"The burqa is not a religious sign, it's a sign of subservience, a sign of debasement -- I want to say it solemnly," he said. "It will not be welcome on the territory of the French Republic."
The Netherlands is about to ban burkas. The country's hardline Integration Minister, Rita Verdonk, known as the Iron Lady for her series of tough anti-immigration measures, told Parliament that she was going to investigate where and when the burka should be banned. The burka, traditional clothing in some Islamic societies, covers a woman's face and body, leaving only a strip of gauze for the eyes.
Mrs Verdonk gave warning that the "time of cosy tea-drinking" with Muslim groups had passed and that natives and immigrants should have the courage to be critical of each other.
She recently cancelled a meeting with Muslim leaders who refused to shake her hand because she was a woman. Great lady!
Although Netherlands has the same inane freedom of expression laws passed in America, she plans to make it a matter of public safety.
Sickened at the prospect that a victory for reformist Mir-Hossein Mousavi in the Iranian presidential election might have led to better relations with the United States, neoconservatives here and their fellow war hawks in Israel are celebrating the dubious victory of hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Yes, this is true: Right-wingers in America and Israel don't want peace with Iran, nor do they want anyone to get the impression that President Obama's efforts at engagement with Iran might actually work, nor do they give a damn about the Iranian people. Mad Mahmoud is the man neocons love to hate, and they're as happy as clams that their guy found a way to steal the election.
Had Mousavi won the Iranian election as many in Iran and around the world hoped, it would likely have signalled a new and more positive direction for U.S.-Iranian relations as well as providing support for the "Obama Doctrine" of engagement with Iran and others in the Muslim world with which America's relations have been troubled. Such a development would at the same time have undercut the neocon attitude of hostility and suspicion toward Iran, as well as undercutting the right-wing Israeli government's aggressive stance toward Iran. As we know, neocons can tolerate peace only when it is imposed with an iron fist or the heel of a jackboot, and the prospect of peace through diplomacy in the Greater Middle East must surely have given them nightmares the rest of us could scarcely imagine.
In the run-up to the Iranian election last week, Daniel Pipes of the right-wing Middle East Forum came right out and admitted in a speech at the right-wing Heritage Foundation that he would actually vote for Ahmadinejad if he were allowed to vote in Iran (video). This speech was followed by a June 12 blog post by Pipes in which he reiterated that he was "rooting for Ahmadinejad" based on the twisted logic that the fundamentalist clerics who really rule Iran will always be our enemies and it's better to have an Iranian president we can really hate than "a sweet-talking Mousavi" who lulls us into thinking we can be friends. Never mind the aspirations or even basic human rights of the Iranian people; never mind anyone's desire for peace in the Greater Middle East. I've long had a pretty strong distaste for Daniel Pipes, but following this admission I'm more convinced of his utter vileness than ever. This is, after all, a man who has publicly advocated for the profiling and internment of Muslims in America, and who considers Israeli and Palestinian existence mutually exclusive (see Sourcewatch). As we leave the age of the neocons behind, I look forward to watching Pipes and others like him slide into the bitter, drooling irrelevance and oblivion they deserve.
The American Enterprise Institute's equally malignant Michael Rubin likewise told Kathryn Jean Lopez at the National Review that it might be better for Ahmadinejad to win, because a Mousavi win might give Obama and the rest of us the impression that diplomacy was actually working. Painting Iran as inherently and hopelessly evil, Rubin said of the Iranian election that should Mousavi win "it would be easier for Obama to believe that Iran really was figuratively unclenching a fist when, in fact, it had its other hand hidden under its cloak, grasping a dagger." James Taranto strikes a similar tone in the Wall Street Journal, warning against the "eagerness to see Obama's feel-good foreign-policy approach succeed."
Now that the Iranian election appears to be over, right-wingers will be tripping over themselves in the rush to use Ahmadinejad's victory against Obama. In fact, once and future Republican U.S. presidential candidate Mitt Romney has already piped up, saying that Ahmadinejad's win is proof that Obama's "policy of going around the world and apologizing for America is not working." These losers obviously have nothing left but the hope that Obama will fail, or can at least be said to have failed. I look forward to watching Romney and his party lose again in 2012.
Right-wingers in Israel, meanwhile, have been making noises very similar to their American bedfellows, and appear to see nothing good for themselves in any warming of relations between the U.S. and Iran, as observed by M.J. Rosenberg at TPM. From Israel in the run-up to the Iranian election Yaakov Katz wrote in the Jerusalem Post that members of the Israeli defense establishment were "silently praying" for an Ahmadinejad victory, fearing that a Mousavi win would result in decreased pressure on Iran and its nuclear program. Now that Ahmadinejad appears to have successfully stolen the election, Israeli officials and their allies in America are calling for renewed pressure on Iran. Meanwhile, Amos Harel and Avi Issacharoff write in Haaretz that an Ahmadinejad victory is actually preferable for Israel because a Mousavi win would only "paste an attractive mask on the face of Iranian nuclear ambitions."
I suspect we'll hear more of this in days to come from eager neocons on both sides of the Atlantic. Obama's policy of engagement will work, however, and is working, as evidenced by the overwhelmingly positive reaction to his Cairo speech, by the Lebanese election results, by the reform movement in Iran, and by the likelihood that Ahmadinejad kept his office only through vote-rigging, suppression, and intimidation. Obama will succeed, and once he has neocons like Daniel Pipes can take up residence in the dustbin of history where they belong.
Mark C. Eades
http://www.mceades.com
Posts
