Fanatical Christians Invade U.S. Senate to Interrupt Hindu Prayer
Matt Gunterman July 12th, 2007
First, we know that President George W. Bush has packed his administration with over 150 graduates of a Virginia-based, fundamentalist Christian college, founded by radical cleric Pat Robertson. These Bush hires have been at the center of nearly every scandal to hit the administration.
Second, a “radical Christian activist group” in Texas has been going around bombing other churches that the bombers themselves don’t consider to be pure, holy, and true enough. The group is rather disorganized at the moment, but the trend is nevertheless frightening.
Third, a radical Christian group invaded the U.S. Senate chambers today to interrupt a prayer being led by an American Hindu. They were arrested, and the prayer continued. Here’s the video.
We’re seeing a disturbing trend, I think, and I believe it will only intensify in the coming years as the majority of the nation moves towards a more inclusive, tolerant agenda to replace the one of hate and fear being carried out by the Bush administration. I think these people, while being small in number, will only radicalize more.
- Bigotry , Conservatism , Evolution , Religion , Religious Fanaticism , Republican Fascism , Republican Party Decline
- Comments(5)
Of course, they’re not terrorists or religious extremists now, are they?
And what a beautiful prayer - how can anyone take exception to that.
I got an email forward from a woman at my church the other day and it was all about how Barack Obama was the product of a militant Islamicist home and converted to Christianity for political viability. It ended by stating that Obama had been sworn into the Senate with a Koran.
I immediately replied to everyone she had sent the email to (most of them I didn’t know) and contradicted every lie made (which was everything) with evidence from reputable sources online.
The only responses I got were from people amazed that any “Christian” could defend an “abortionist” or “traitor” like Obama. None of them were concerned about truth or what was true. Obama was, in their eyes, subhuman and wasn’t to be defended. Spreading lies was simply considered a legitimate means to defeat the man.
These same people, I believe, are the 25% who still support Bush. Those people aren’t concerned about truth either, they’re only concerned about Bush’s vision of theocracy.
Hey, when Stan Lee loses the attorney general’s race, then maybe he can go join that group in Texas and whip them into militant shape.
IS - I’ve done the same with the anti-Hillary chain letter that said she snubbed military widows (or mothers?), with the same response. I’m not particularly a fan of Sen. Clinton, but using lies “by any means necessary” just really disgusts me.
With the three folks trying to stop the Hindu they looked like morons. Most Americans really hate rudeness because its such a basic principle. Even the religious right folk would see the lack of good test in their actions.