Not one to shy away from speaking his mind, Keillor proposed a solution to what he deemed a fundamental problem with U.S. elections. "I'm trying to organize support for a constitutional amendment to deny voting rights to born-again Christians," Keillor smirked. "I feel if your citizenship is in Heaven-like a born again Christian's is-you should give up your citizenship. Sorry, but this is my new cause. If born again Christians are allowed to vote in this country, then why not Canadians?" chicago.edu
Am I offended? Not really. I think it says a lot about the moral superiority of the left. The casting of all those who oppose you as inferior and unfit is a well-worn path. One that the left never seems to see itself as engaging in. Nevertheless, I'm much more offended by the accusations that I am stupid, a fascist, a rascist, against democracy, or just plain evil.
We could argue about how such a comment about taking away anyone's citizenship based on their group identification would normally be received by the left, even if it were in jest, but I'm really not into group victim hood at any level. (Boring.) Suffice it to say that I point it out for the sake of pointing out liberal hypocrisy. Replace Christian with Black, Jew, Women, or Communist, take your pick of protected groups, and such a statement would be hate speech.
But let's think about this whole 'jesusland' angle many liberals have latched onto post-election to soothe their wounded ideology. It's as if Karl Rove actually did possess Emperor Palpatine magnitude powers and performed a massive jedi mind trick on the partisans of the left. Because in flailing about for a scapegoat (note: almost imperceptible religious reference) Democrats not only confirm an image of secular animosity to religion, but risk cementing their role as anti-religious and being an enemy to people of faith and how would that ever help win another election?
Which begs the question: are Democrats for protection of religious liberty or eradication of it? I ask the question knowing that it is almost rhetorical. Many Democrats are Christians. I know quite a few, and they have varying views on what separation of church and state means. But when I read some of the more strident voices of the left I wonder. Such as the following:
The greatest threat to democracy is not militant Islamic fundamentalists who dwell as terrorists in foreign lands waiting to destabilize the free west; the greatest threat is religious fundamentalism within our own shores.
Democracy and fundamentalism are simply incompatible. That has always been the case. We are witnessing it now in Iraq--a state of affairs totally miscalculated by the Bush administration due to its utter ignorance regarding the true mandates for democracy; and that is what we are witnessing in the rhetoric of the religious right in America--itself barely able to sustain the core values of a liberal democracy. dailykos
My working theory about why American Christians are viewed by the left as if they were the Taliban, is that Liberalism itself at some point can become (for some) a fundamentalist religion. One that has all the same characteristics they decry of all fundamentalisms; a stark view of good and evil, every issue seen in black and white terms, good guys, bad guys, etc.
Today's breed of Republicans have nothing to do with the values they used to espouse, and that I myself espouse - the values of personal liberty and conservatism. Yes, I am a "classical conservative", or "neo-progressive" if you will.
Today's breed of Republicans, mi gordito, as you will read about in your history books when you get older, are a breed world history has seen before. Except earlier, in the mid-twentieth century, they were called Fascists. Today's Republicans in the USA are Republican Fascists. And anyone who doesn't see that, dearest, have problems and issues in which I am not, and am no longer, willing to entangle myself. There just isn't any justification anymore for support of this "party" of bigoted, fascist thugs. dailykos
Just food for thought, I guess.