An Affront to People of Faith

Friends,

Bush said yesterday that the bombing of the Shiite mosque is an "affront to people of faith." Somebody should tell our president that it's the very "people of faith" he speaks of who did the bombing in the first place! Not only that, they did it because they are people of faith!

We talk in this country as if “people of faith” are better or wiser, that we’d be a better country if all of us had religious faith. That is wrong! Just the opposite is true.

Bush has spoken in the past of the “hijacking of a great religion.” Why is it a “great religion”, Mr. President?” You tell me. What do you suppose are the chances that God came down to earth and spoke to Mohammed (“the Prophet") who “heard voices” and proceeded to dictate the Koran? One in 10,000? One in 100,000? How about zero?

Yet, otherwise intelligent, educated people actually believe this stuff! And maybe THAT is exactly the problem. Faith itself! The beliefs of fundamentalist Christians are more benign, but are no less outlandish, just as divisive, and just as dangerous. (Those of you who call yourself “moderate” Christians or Moslems empower the fundamentalists with your cherry-picking approach to the Bible and Koran)

When I hear someone argue that a religious belief “must be true because so many educated and intelligent people believe it," I say that the unwillingness of so-called intelligent people to rigorously question their religious faith makes them STUPID -- education level notwithstanding.

Sorry about that, but there’s no other possible conclusion!

What else can you say about someone who believes in fantasies without a shred of evidence and who never asks questions? Which is exactly what’s so scary about religious faith. When intelligent, rational people can be taken in hook, line and sinker by such crazy stuff, it only underscores the astonishing power that religious faith has over people. Just look at the faces of the demonstrators on television. Some undoubtedly have high IQs. Look at what “religious faith” does to them!

We need to remove the taboo that exists in our society about discussing religion. It needs to become socially acceptable to start questioning the very foundations of religious belief. Did God really come down to earth and work hand-in-hand with the ancient Hebrews to write the Bible? Including the slavery and stoning parts? Does it make any sense whatsoever that the “God Of Our Universe" (including all 100 billion galaxies!) would use a nomadic Middle Eastern tribe to spread “His Word”?

It’s utterly nonsensical, of course, but so what! To “people of faith” it doesn’t matter that it makes no sense -- which is exactly WHY we must remove the taboo. We can’t allow this to go on, if we want our species to survive on this earth.

The only answer I see is education. Instead of starting a religious war like Bush has done, we should have set about educating every kid in the world (as Clinton suggested before 9/11). And if and when we ever do, let’s leave out “intelligent design” and not listen to mentally-challenged zealots like Bush who say “the jury is still out.”

Bush is right for once

For once I'm siding with George Bush. He is right to not be joining in the silly hysteria over a having a company from a country with "Arab" in their name manage some of our ports.

Nothing in life is sure, but from everything I've heard the United Arab Emigrates is a "strong ally" who can be "trusted", who is competant, and who has proven their loyalty to us a partner in fighting terrorism. There's no doubt that our enemy has become their enemy.

Not only that, because Dubai shares the same culture and religion as our enemies, they are theoretically in a position to do a better job than they could if they were non-Muslim. A "fox" you can trust will always be better at guarding the "henhouse" from other foxes than a non-fox would be.

Showing trust toward this company will frustrate al Qaeda and the Sunni Arab insurgents who will not like it that we have formed a working relationship with one of their own. It will be a strong step in the right direction. It's a window of opportunity to strengthen a bond of friendship in the Arab world.

On the other hand, to reject this company because it comes from a country with "Arab" in their name will only please our enemies and weaken an important ally!

Thank you Monica

I hope Monica Lewinsky is happy with herself. If it hadn't been for her (with help from that despicable Linda Tripp), Al Gore would have won the election, and would probably still be president.

With Gore as president, we would have gone after Osama in Afghanistan, and would likely have finished the job. An attack by 19 religious zealots would have been properly treated as a criminal matter, and not sold to us as a "War on Terror." We would not have launched our ill-conceived "war" in Iraq because it would not have been necessary. There were other ways to contain and neuter Saddam.

Gore would have seen all the intelligence, not just the "selective intelligence" that supported his position. He would not have ordered that bootlicker George Tenet of the CIA to "find me evidence against Saddam." He would have realized (as all informed people did) that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. (In fact, Islamic extremism was a threat to him, too.)

In an interview just yesterday, Paul Pillar, a former high-ranking CIA officer, says "Intelligence was misused to justify decisions that had already been made." Analysts who resisted were accused of "trying to sabotage the president's policies."

Had Al Gore been president, it would have been obvious that Saddam was far from the biggest "threat" we faced, and was not worth going to war against; and that there were more effective ways to promote our interests in that part of the world. (Bill Clinton once suggested, before 9/11, that the answer was to "educate every child in the world." With the money Iraq is costing us, we could have done that!)

Notice I keep saying "we" and "our". Because even though a lot of us were passionately against this needless "war of choice" from the beginning -- and even though we're angry at Bush for starting it -- and even though we realize that Gore lost and Bush won -- we now have to accept that We're "all in this together." That includes always supporting the troops, maybe a tax increase, doing what we need to get back on the right track. (Whatever the right track is? I just know that Bush put us on the wrong track and that shifting over to the right one will not be easy.)

Our first move as a country should be to Impeach George Bush. But then we'd get Cheney, so maybe that's not a good idea! Our only option is contain their power as much as possible, and I think that's being done. An avalanche of scandals is helping, and the press is getting more vocal. The Administration would love to clamp down on the press, but fortunatelly they can't. I'm so thankful that "freedom of speech" is so deeply ingrained in our laws and culture.

In China the stuff I'm writing would get me 10 years in prison (as one writer just got), and my internet service provider would identify me (as Yahoo just did). That illustrates that the "free market" by itself does not preserve freedom. Companies can pretty much be counted on to put profit first and principle second. Principles like freedom of speech, freedom of religion and privacy can only be guaranteed with a Consitution and the "balance of powers" it prescribes.

If guys like Bush, Cheney and Rove were our "Founding Fathers," do you think we'd have a Bill of Rights? A ludicrous thought, you say?

Sure is, even to an intelligent Republican. Why ludicrous? Because these men do not remotely resemble the educated men of wisdom who founded this country. Quite the opposite! They're right wing ideologues who have cost us dearly and are now trying to screw around with our precious Consitution. Men like Bush, Cheney and Rove may give lip service to "freedom of the press," but they'd contain and restrict if they could, and they'd never ensconce it in a constitution. That's the kind of people they are. Politics and power always ahead of wisdom and principle.

I'm angry, but not as worried as I might be. The Bush Administration is so incompetent, and has so botched the mission (whatever the hell its "mission" is), and has so lost the confidence of the public, that it's likely the Republicans will lose the next congressional election (I hope), and the presidential one after that. And then we can find our way again and get back on track and undo the damage Bush has caused.

A part of me wants to apologize for speaking so disrespectfully about George Bush. I don't like doing it. Another part of me says "Too bad." I am just so damn angry at what he has done, and the lives and suffering he's cost. I have the utmost respect for "the office of president," which is why I deplore having an arrogant idiot like Bush (there I go again) occupying it!

Last year was a tough year for poor George and -- fortunately -- it's not likely to get any better. He's got it coming from all sides and it looks like we're just getting started. The "scandals" are not a big issue with me -- I'm almost glad they're happening because they're showing the people who the Conservatives really are. It sort of puts Clinton's "Lincoln Bedroom" problem into perspective, doesn't it? Not to mention his tryst with Monica and then the denials. (Tell me the truth: Would you lie about a blow job? Yes or no?)

I had to laugh when I read a few days ago that our devoutly religious president has "only recently been able to forgive Bill Clinton" for the "shame he brought on our presidency." Can you freakin' imagine!!! See what happens when you confuse religious values with human values?

I wish we could thow him out of office right now and send him back to the ranch to ponder the coming "Rapture." (which he once said he believed would happen "in our lifetime"). And speaking of religion, a relative of the Bush family was quoted as saying that Bush sees the Iraq war as a "religous war". (From "American Dynasty" by Kevin Phillips, published in 2004). Be careful what you wish for, George!

I'm so angry about the damage this blundering fool (arrogant, too -- what a combination!!) has done to our country. He's weakened us in so many ways: Fiscally (the first president since Garfield to have never vetoed a bill). Morally (proving that religious values and moral values are not the same). Militarily (Are our potential enemies glad or sorry to see us bogged down in Iraq?). Worst of all, he's put us in a perpetual "state of war." An organization like Al Qaeda should have been gone after militarily, and then criminally prosectuted, not used an excuse to invade Iraq. "Spreading democracy" is a great idea in theory. But who said we needed to launch a pre-emptive war against a country who did not threaten us in order to do it? Can you think of anything dumber?

Remember, men like Bush prefer to be "at war". It enables them to seize power and play "commander in chief."

Democracy may indeed take hold in the Middle East -- eventually -- but most of what we're doing now is not helping. And besides, there are other ways to "spread democracy" short of war. Free elections in Iraq? Great idea. Civil war between Sunni's and Shiites? Not so great. Think of the costs, not just the money but the tens of thousands of personal tragedies. We're not spreading democracy. We're stirring up passions of hatred that didn't need to be stirred up. Bush has put us in very tough spot in Iraq. As we pull out our troops, the civil war between Shites and Sunnis will intensity. Then what do we do? Send the troops back in?

I cannot respect a man who refuses to tell us the truth, who will not admit he lied to us, and who then continues to lie by telling us he was right all along. Only six weeks ago, he again said he would "do it all again" -- "even knowing what we know now." Can you image that? He also said, almost casually, without a hint of sadness or regret, that Iraqi deaths (mostly civilian) were "around 30,000." (Most estimates are closer to 100,000).

I don't understand how any knowledgable citizen can accept the "would do it all again" claim. How can he say that? Why doesn't the press call him on it? It's not only a bold-faced lie (because the country would never have gone along based on "what we know now"). But considering the problems Iraq is causing him politically, I can't believe he wouldn't give it a second thought if he he had it to over again!

The liar!