Well, Chris Hedges prediction about the appearance of a Christian Fascist flag in the U.S. has come true. Wikipedia has a nice article explaining its origins. It was apparently first conceived and designed by an American Sunday School teacher a little over a century ago but has languished in unattended obscurity until recently.
The town of King, North Carolina, had been flying one of these flags over its war memorial until recently, when someone complained and the City Council, on the advice of its attorney, voted to take it down (after having voted once recently--without advice from the attorney--to retain it).
Austin Cline did a good job of explaining the legal and political issues in his blog on atheism. What is really amazing though, are the comments he got from people who actually support this incredible attempt to undermine our Constitution, our freedoms, and the truth. I strongly recommend reading some of them to get a flavor of the evil threatening Western Civilization from within.
This sort of behavior and the statements made in support of it are why we non-believers (and others who support freedom) cannot be silent. The incident and comments also illustrate why it is clear that religion is a delusional form of mental illness. The blinkered, ignorant, close-mindedness and the Orwellian twisting of truth and history evident in the comments reveals that the religious will stop at nothing to make sure they and their particular religion are dominant in all spheres of life.
Other overt symptoms of fascism as were described in Chris Hedges' book "American Fascists" are also evident. Most notably the delusional idea that they are being persecuted in some fashion. After centuries of persecuting everyone else, especially non-believers, they actually dare to complain of persecution when someone tries to make them stop being such bullies.
This is not only a classic symptom of fascism--the delusion of persecution on the part of those who are actually doing the persecuting--it is also a classic symptom of mental illness. Mental health professionals call it "projection" because the patient is projecting his own motivations and desires onto his victims, assuming they want to do to him what he wants to do to them.
Here are the comments of one "scholar" from the Winston-Salem Journal article on this story:
"As a rule, the ACLU should take the name America out of its title.
iast (sic) has become such an inept and undemocratic group that it
needs to be disbanded. it uses your taxpayer monies to continue
their unethical lawsuits."
Since when is the ACLU an arm of the U.S. Government? Since when does the ACLU receive taxpayer funding? Since when is standing up for the rights of an individual against a mob undemocratic? And, is a legal advocacy group inept for attempting to advocate that people follow the law?
Sometimes it seems like shooting fish in a barrel or like picking on the mentally challenged when arguing against such people--except for the fact that they are literally incorrigible, meaning you simply cannot correct them. They are impervious to facts.
Nevertheless, try to have the facts at hand and put them out there whenever you can. You never know when one of them might stick. Maybe not with this particular cretin, but with someone else.
The one thing this religious/narcissist type is most afraid of and can understand even when in a fever pitch of incorrect, but righteous, indignation is the concept of "looking bad". When they make these "gollywhopper" statements, correct them--especially in public, if it is safe to do so. What counts most in a public debate is not what is said but the reaction to it. Such outrageous statements, if allowed to go unchallenged, will be taken by many to be either true or respectable.
The town of King, North Carolina, had been flying one of these flags over its war memorial until recently, when someone complained and the City Council, on the advice of its attorney, voted to take it down (after having voted once recently--without advice from the attorney--to retain it).
Austin Cline did a good job of explaining the legal and political issues in his blog on atheism. What is really amazing though, are the comments he got from people who actually support this incredible attempt to undermine our Constitution, our freedoms, and the truth. I strongly recommend reading some of them to get a flavor of the evil threatening Western Civilization from within.
This sort of behavior and the statements made in support of it are why we non-believers (and others who support freedom) cannot be silent. The incident and comments also illustrate why it is clear that religion is a delusional form of mental illness. The blinkered, ignorant, close-mindedness and the Orwellian twisting of truth and history evident in the comments reveals that the religious will stop at nothing to make sure they and their particular religion are dominant in all spheres of life.
Other overt symptoms of fascism as were described in Chris Hedges' book "American Fascists" are also evident. Most notably the delusional idea that they are being persecuted in some fashion. After centuries of persecuting everyone else, especially non-believers, they actually dare to complain of persecution when someone tries to make them stop being such bullies.
This is not only a classic symptom of fascism--the delusion of persecution on the part of those who are actually doing the persecuting--it is also a classic symptom of mental illness. Mental health professionals call it "projection" because the patient is projecting his own motivations and desires onto his victims, assuming they want to do to him what he wants to do to them.
Here are the comments of one "scholar" from the Winston-Salem Journal article on this story:
"As a rule, the ACLU should take the name America out of its title.
iast (sic) has become such an inept and undemocratic group that it
needs to be disbanded. it uses your taxpayer monies to continue
their unethical lawsuits."
Since when is the ACLU an arm of the U.S. Government? Since when does the ACLU receive taxpayer funding? Since when is standing up for the rights of an individual against a mob undemocratic? And, is a legal advocacy group inept for attempting to advocate that people follow the law?
Sometimes it seems like shooting fish in a barrel or like picking on the mentally challenged when arguing against such people--except for the fact that they are literally incorrigible, meaning you simply cannot correct them. They are impervious to facts.
Nevertheless, try to have the facts at hand and put them out there whenever you can. You never know when one of them might stick. Maybe not with this particular cretin, but with someone else.
The one thing this religious/narcissist type is most afraid of and can understand even when in a fever pitch of incorrect, but righteous, indignation is the concept of "looking bad". When they make these "gollywhopper" statements, correct them--especially in public, if it is safe to do so. What counts most in a public debate is not what is said but the reaction to it. Such outrageous statements, if allowed to go unchallenged, will be taken by many to be either true or respectable.
No comments:
Post a Comment