Name Calling Accomplishes Nothing But Breeding Ill Will

What follows is a response to an article on Mediate.com which started with a typically incendiary statement by Rush Limbaugh comparing the London rioters to Obama voters. Funny, I voted for Obama and I never started one single riot. I walked to the polling place, voted, and walked home, all without setting one single house or car on fire. I have been at least moderately disappointed in Obama's performance, particularly when it comes to issues such as repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell (sure took damn long enough) and standing up for the gay voters who helped put him in office. But if the choice were him or Homo-Hatin' Bachmann, I'd certainly vote him in again. Is anyone else scared by the idea that this hate-filled individual is being considered at all seriously for the highest office in the land--or that she was able to get voted into ANY kind of office?

Here is my commentary on the article:

All the name-calling is getting us exactly nowhere. I am 46 years old and never since I was a child during the Viet Nam war have I seen the country more divided. People talk about wanting to vote in more conservative candidates because of the prosperity during the Reagan era. Reagan was nothing like today's right wing reactionaries. He was a moderate Republican and a gentleman, and would be ashamed of the vehemence displayed by his party today. 

The biggest problem I have with today's conservative candidates is their refusal to abide by separation of church and state. They bring their religious views to the forefront of many of their debates. This is intolerable and will continue to polarize the parties to the point that nothing positive can be accomplished.

I would like to see more fiscal conservatism and less Fundamentalist reactionary rhetoric in the Right wing. I would like to see less name calling and finger pointing on both sides. It is accomplishing nothing and so much needs to be fixed for the good of all.

The Fundie God

GodIs says:
God understands the problem of character and realizes that not only is the unbeliever unfit morally for Heaven, but he would choose to leave Heaven because of his discomfort with incompatible ends.

If God were to welcome the wicked into Heaven and make some allowances so that they would choose to stay, they would jeopardize the stability of the Heavenly abode. The goals of these selfish citizens would be at continual odds with those of God and the righteous citizens, throwing Heaven into turmoil and ultimately inciting insurrection and destruction.

Thus, God is obligated by His commitment to peace and harmony to confine those who have chosen self as their sole end to a place appropriate to their character. Since sinners love darkness rather than light, God gives them over to darkness. Since they love themselves supremely, God gives them an eternity to satisfy themselves. Since they love wickedness, He gives them wicked companions. Since they reject righteousness, God gives them a place devoid of righteousness. Since they love to mock the blessings of God and His love, God gives them a place devoid of Him and His love.

You see, God even loves sinners enough to give them exactly what they want most. Eternal misery and suffering in Hell is the most loving thing God can offer the unrepentant sinner.

The Cheese Says:

Right then. But your god does not make a distinction between a person who doesn't believe in him but treats everybody wonderfully, saves ten orphans from a burning building and builds a hospital for the poor; and a person who goes about stomping kittens and puppies and impaling infants. According to the fundamentalist rules, both the good hearted atheist and the evil sicko will burn in the fires of hell. This god doesn't seem like a very fair deity to me, nor loving in the least. I think I'll choose me one that has a little more sense and sensitivity.
And if your god is all powerful, how come he creates unfit creatures in the first place?

Freedom of Religion....Freedom From Morons...

I am such a dreamer!

I commented on this note in the About Pagan/Wiccan group on Facebook.

The upshot of the note is that a narrow-minded shop teacher in Iowa refused to allow a Pagan student to build an altar as his class project. The teacher is quoted as saying:

"It scares me. I'm a Christian... This witchcraft stuff - it's terrible for our kids. It takes kids away from what they know, and leads them to a dark and violent life. We spend millions of tax dollars trying to save kids from that."

The Cheesy One says:

Maybe this is rude, but my knee jerk reaction is "that shop teacher is a damn idiot!"
I started becoming interested in the REAL old time religion back when dinosaurs still roamed the Earth (the early 1980's.) I encountered a lot of prejudice, but the funny thing is, the statement that got me branded a "Satan Worshiper" was not anything about my interest in the Occult but the fact that I thought that Sweden's medical system was a good one. This got me branded a "commie," which devolved into "Satan Worshiper." Sadly, we haven't come a long way, Baby.

Additional thoughts:

This teacher needs to quit taking pulls from the crack pipe of Fundamentalist Christian intolerance. The Old Religion teaches peace. I would venture to say that a nation of open-minded Pagans would be a far more peaceful one than a nation of Fundamentalists of most other creeds. I do not have anything against Christians if what is meant by Christian is a person who tries to follow the TRUE teachings of Christ: peace and tolerance. I do have a problem with the Fundamentalist McChurches, which teach hate and intolerance to their flock.

A reading from the Book of Cheese:

Thou shalt not suffer an intolerant twit to continue life unscathed without a pie to the face.

Peace, pies, and Cheese.