Bastardized Democracy

November 19 2004
Counterbias.com
Doug Griffin
T E X A N   F O R   T R U T H

“We want the Republican leadership to clearly understand the appointment of Senator Specter, as chair of the Judiciary Committee, would be a slap in the face to the millions of pro-life, pro-family Americans who helped elect the president”  - Rev. Patrick Mahoney, Director of the Christian Defense Coalition

Does this quote send chills up your spine?  It should. When has it ever been permissible for a clergyman to dictate domestic policy?  Not to mention the fact that Senator Specter is as respected a senator as any for his integrity and forthrightness. Folks, the time is long past due to call a spade a spade. Ours is a bastardized democracy. The lines between church and state have been blurred beyond recognition under the Bush Administration. In an article, conservative Jeff Jackson defined a bastardized democracy as one “where the majority will be allowed to inflict their will, as long as no arbitrary sub-group is perceived to be harmed.” I’m not so sure that the Neo-cons are in the majority, but they have indeed positioned themselves to inflict their will, regardless of the consequences or the affected sub-groups. In Mr. Jackson’s article, he decries how it is liberals who are the social engineers that are imposing their will on the public.

O contraire, mon frere!

It is those social engineers known as Evangelical Christians who are imposing their will on the public. Pro-choice advocates do not attempt to compel people to get abortions. Pro-life/pro-family advocates, on the other hand, are all about intimidation and coercion to get people to their side. Don’t believe me? Re-visit that quote at the top of the page!

Here’s what the Evangelicals don’t seem to get: Just because the Constitution of the United States of America guarantees a woman’s right to choose, doesn’t mean she is going to choose abortion. It means she has the choice to do either. But under the Bush Administration, she may see no other choice than abortion. When Bush II took office, abortions were on a 10-year decline under the Clinton Administration. They are now on the rise. According to an article by Dr. Glen Harold Stassen, in 2002 alone, there were more than 52,000 more abortions than there would have been had the downward trend continued.  But the upswing has more to do with economics than morals.

If people cannot afford healthcare for themselves or the children they already have, or can’t afford another mouth to feed, how do you expect them not to consider abortion as an option? Parenthood ain’t cheap, folks! If Roe vs. Wade is ever reversed, perhaps we should then register all those who profess to be pro-life in a national database. Then we can pass a law that says all registered pro-life citizens are financially responsible for unwanted births and subsequent childcare.

Put your money where your mouths are! Remember, Christ was all about charity. Are you a real Christian or simply a CiNO (Christian in Name Only)? I’m talking to you, dear evangelical. Stop paying lip-service to being compassionate and actually be a compassionate. Stop using Christianity as your personal status symbol. Try living the words He spoke, rather than simply spouting your favorite scriptures.

You wanted this president! You need to pay for his mistakes. While you’re at it, Christian Soldiers, why don’t you sign your sons and daughters up to go fight in his war(s)?

Next, the sanctity of marriage is certainly under siege on many different fronts. However, the possibility of homosexuals having the right to marry truly is not one of the threats. If you want to make a Constitutional amendment to protect the sanctity of marriage, it should be about something that actually has a negative impact on marriages. As I’ve said before, my wife and I have argued about many things. Not one single time have we argued about same-sex marriage. I’d wager that this is the case with the overwhelming majority of  marriages. Perhaps a Constitutional amendment to ban adultery would be preferable. Adultery ruins marriages. Or, how about an amendment to ban… dare I say it… pornography?Sorry guys, but it had to be said. I’d lay a million to one odds that more marriages have been destroyed over pornography than by the idea of gay marriage. Any takers? I would argue that those who wish to ban same-sex marriage are not doing so to protect marriage, but rather to discriminate against a group within our society whose lifestyle they do not agree with.

Finally, guns kill more people than abortions do. That’s a fact. Yet the right to own one is guaranteed in the Constitution. I don’t hear any pro-lifers protesting guns. Quite the contrary.  It’s been my experience that most of them own guns and many were probably for the expiration of the assault weapons ban. If you claim to be pro-life, how do you explain that obvious flip-flop? Additionally, most pro-life advocates that I’ve met are also pro death penalty. So, obviously, it is the unborn who are more important than the born, as far as pro-lifers are concerned. They have to make sure the unborn get born so they can grow up to be good Republicans.

It comes down to a fundamental understanding of the live-and-let-live principle. Progressives may not agree with the conservative view of life, but we’re not exactly forcing our ideals on them either. No one has to get an abortion. If you are not gay, same-sex marriage has absolutely no affect on you – other than your own prejudices. Conservatives are all about forcing their ways and ideals on everyone else and punishing anyone who does not conform. The irony of it all is that people originally came to America to escape persecution – specifically religious persecution. Now the Religious-Right wants to persecute everyone who does not believe as they do. How much more un-American can you get? The Neo-cons have said they are going to run any progressive voice out of their party. Blatantly un-American! And the Bush-compliant media reports this with about as cavalier an attitude one could imagine.

The pendulum can only swing so far to the Right

Since the 2004 elections, it has been said that the Democratic Party needs to reassess itself. Yes it does, but not in a way that makes it impossible to determine Democrat from Republican, as many media pundits have suggested. They say that the Democratic Party is out of touch with mainstream America. I disagree. Mainstream America was either not intelligent enough or not informed enough to realize they’ve been had by the Bush Administration. The media has the majority of that blame to shoulder. One of the biggest mistakes the Democrats made this election cycle was conceding the Red states without much of a fight.

In 1992, Bill Clinton won 9 of the so-called Red states. In 1996 he took 8 of them. The change that the Democrats need to make is fundamental: Concede nothing! All 50 states are crucial. The funding apparatus is in place, thanks to Howard Dean. And I, for one, would love to see the good doctor as the leader of the Democratic Party. I think an infusion of type-Dean blood mixed with the Clintonian wing of the party might be able to accomplish something if they can learn to work together. Capitalize on the solidarity of this year’s election.

The last President of the United States of America was William Jefferson Clinton. George W. Bush is the President of the Divided States of America.

I’m reminded of the old saying, “United we stand, divided we fall.”

United, we stood tall and respected in the world. Divided, we stand at the brink of the same fate as every empire that went before us.