Monday, May 31, 2004

Constitutional Amendment Separating State and Superstition

A few hundred years ago, the major religions were each huge evil empires with their own armies and the power to control countries and to imprison and torture people.

Those were the dark ages with crusades and inquisitions and rampant religious superstition. Fortunately those days are gone.

I never understood how the world could allow such evil. It's inconceivable that church leaders could command armies and commit acts of torture and murder. I thought it could never happen in the modern world because people can never be that superstitious again.

Now I see the Bush regime trying to impose a christian Taliban on America. I see catholic bishops audaciously covering for pedofiles among their own ranks while calling for church sanctions against certain politicians. I see muslim mobsters murdering and beheading while chanting, "god is great".

A couple things are very obvious:
  1. Religion has no business infecting politics.

  2. Religious wackos WILL seize any opportunity to grab power, even in America.

It's time for a new constitutional amendment establishing Separation of State and Superstition.

We have the 1st amendment but it's not strong enough. We need a new amendment that says clearly, once and for all, government will not get entangled with any organization that has even the appearance of religion.

Here are some of the principles the new amendment should establish:
  1. All laws are to be based on objective human reasoning and logic, not religious commandments. Our laws should be based on solid reasoning, not flimsy superstition.

    For example, when our elected officials discuss gay marriage, it is not appropriate for them to cite "sanctity of marriage". That's an undefined, purely religious concept. Instead, they should talk about what legal rights, privileges, and obligations a government recognized marriage contract conveys and why those things should be available to some people and not others.

  2. No tax dollars should be given to any organization who's purpose has even the appearance of religion.

    No more faith-based initiatives.

  3. Government policy and financial aid to foreign countries must be based on achieving rational goals for America, not merely trying to help-along biblical prophecy.

    If it's in America's best interest to donate many billions of dollars to Israel and Egypt every year, let's hear the reasons.

In a nutshell, government should be driven by objective reasoning, not religious superstition.

Wednesday, May 26, 2004

Just Say No to the Religious Republicans

Conservatives in America today have hijacked and perverted the philosophy they once stood for and it's time to give them a more accurate label: RELIGIOUS REPUBLICANS.

The label, "conservative", used to mean people who were for individual rights, civil liberties, individual responsibility, lower taxes and smaller, less intrusive government. That's what Ronald Reagan was all about.

Not any more! Now, the only thing that can be said about "conservatives" is they are highly religious and desire to create laws banning abortion and enforcing a "christian" view of family values. Sound familiar? This is the christian version of the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Taliban wanted to enforce muslim values. Conservatives in America want to enforce christian values.

A lot of christians think we are far removed from the Taliban but after the torture of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan and the rhetoric of the Bush regime and John Ashcroft JUSTIFYING torture, how long will it be before our police force and FBI here in America begin applying a little extra "pressure" to suspects? Did you ever think you would hear the top government officials in America justifying torture? That's just one symptom of the systemic disease infecting Washington DC under the Bush regime.

It's time we stop letting them hide behind the once respectable label, conservative, and start calling them what they really are - the RELIGIOUS REPUBLICANS.

Friday, May 14, 2004

Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin-Laden?

We have Saddam Hussein but not Osama Bin Laden. Which is more important? We've spent a lot of lives, money, and American credibility capturing Saddam Hussein. Would it have been better to dedicate those soldiers to Afghanistan looking for Osama Bin-Laden and getting that country stabilized and democratized?

Tackling Afghanistan was a reasonable and ethical operation since the Taliban was truly supporting terrorism and Afghanistan was the training ground and operational base for 9/11. World opinion agreed with our attack on Afghanistan. World opinion has always been against the attack on Iraq and we've lost our moral high ground and our credibility.

The answer is obvious. It would have been far better to finish the job in Afghanistan first before attacking Iraq. The mess in Iraq is a collosal mountain of incompetence on the part of this president and his regime.

Before the attack on Iraq, we could say to the world, "America has never pre-emptively attacked another country." We can never say that again.

Before now, we could say to the world, "Americans don't torture or abuse prisoners of war." We can never say that again and expect to be believed.

The christian cowboy George Bush has damaged America's reputation and credibility. George Bush is a bigger threat to America than Saddam Hussein ever was.

Even if Saddam Hussein was supporting terrorism, the most he could do is kill a few people. If George Bush gets elected again he can kill America! George Bush and his ilk are shutting down free speech and cancelling due process. They are rendering the American Constitution obsolete and insignificant, trying to turn America into a christian Taliban ruled by babbling nonsense written centuries ago (christian bible) by superstitious wannabe-important zealots. If George Bush succeeds, all 250 million Americans will lose their country. The world will lose the first true beacon of freedom. George Bush is un-American and he is a much bigger threat to America than all the terrorists in the world combined.

If George Bush turns America into a religious police state, would it still be worth fighting for and dying for America?

Let's remember, all terrorists are religious terrorists! Religion is the source of terrorism.

Thursday, May 13, 2004

Secret Surveillance now Surpasses Standard Surveillance

The Patriot Act was supposedly to protect us from true terrorists. I predict, if George Bush wins the election, soon we'll be hearing about porn sites being shut down using the Patriot Act. Gays and abortion rights activist and others that don't fit George Bush's image of a proper christian will find themselves the target of secret surveillance.

George Bush and his christian crusaders are trying to convert America into a "christian Taliban". If they succeed, then we will have lost everything that made America worth fighting for.

Article in EPIC.
The 2003 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act Annual Report reveals that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court granted 1724 applications for secret surveillance last year, more than in any previous year. The report shows that 2003 was the first year ever that more secret surveillance warrants were granted than federal wiretap warrants, which are issued only under a more stringent legal standard. The PATRIOT Act significantly expanded the government's authority to make use of secret surveillance, including in circumstances where part of the investigation is unrelated to an intelligence investigation. The report also reveals that a small number of applications for secret surveillance were denied in 2003 for the first time ever.