Divide and Conquer
By Clyde
Thursday, May 12, 2005
Could it be that we liberals have taken the wrong approach to the argument of religion in the public forum? Should we as Democrats embrace the religious right's assertion that we need to erect Christian/Judeo symbols in the public square instead of insisting that our government be wholly secularist? Are we missing the opportunity to finally put this debate to rest once and for all? It is my belief that we need to join up with the "people of faith" in this country and actively promote the idea that this country was indeed founded upon Christian/Judeo principles and that those principles should become part of the norm in all of our governmental functions and establishments. In other words, let's give them so much religion that they choke on it.
There is an old saying that when you give a person enough rope eventually he will end up hanging himself with it. So with that piece of wisdom in mind let us stand back from arguing that the Ten Commandments in a Courthouse violates the separation of Church and State. Instead let's give them what they want and ask them one simple question, which version of the Ten Commandments do you want Protestant, Catholic or Hebrew? Being that every religious sect believes that their religion is the one true religion and all others are false, the fighting that will erupt between the different denominations will be a "Celebrity Death Match" writer's wet dream.
We need to concede that life does begin at conception and therefore every zygote in every in-vitro laboratory needs to be immediately inserted into the womb of every female Pro-Lifer so that that child can reach its full potential. After all, if it is to be considered a child while stuck to the uterine wall should it not be considered a child when it is stuck into a vat of liquid nitrogen? You can rest assured that once these mothers-to-be are forced to look at having this unplanned pregnancy forced upon them by the men in Washington, you will see a whole new definition to the word "insurgency."
We need to embrace the "Protection of Marriage" amendment that George W. Bush advocated for during the 2004 election campaign, but instead of just banning gay marriage we need to really protect the sanctity of marriage. Support for this amendment would scatter faster than a fart in a windstorm if we were to advocate for the elimination of the ability to obtain a divorce for any reason. Newt Gingrich, Bob Barr and Rush Limbaugh would be sucking on a microphone so fast, in opposition, that they may actually come to believe in the symbolic nature of what they are doing.
The fact of the matter is that coherent arguments do not work on religious zealots. For the last thirty years we have been trying to make the argument that the separation of Church and State is to insure that the State does not impose its will upon the Church and vice versa, but these people are unwilling to listen. They are so enamored with the righteousness of their cause that unless we change tactics it would literally take an act of God to make them change their position. So I say grab your Bible's and forget laughing with the sinners and begin crying with the saints.
Permalink
::
0 comments
::
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
<$BlogCommentBody$>
posted by
<$BlogCommentAuthor$>
at <$BlogCommentDateTime$> <$BlogCommentDeleteIcon$> |
| |
|
| |
|
|
