I read with interest Doug Giles' excellent article Christianity Sucks and Islam is Awsome? It expresses much of the frustration many feel when so many in the MSP and the entertainment industry (EI) try to link the actions of Islam with "right wing Christianity."

But the fact is, such link is no suprise!

That is the MSP and the EI for you! Or, more accurately: that is political correctness for you. At root of the political correctness movement is the belief that there is no objective truth (despite what the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution say!). The PC movement's John 3:16 is: What is true for you may not be true for me. Aside from the fact that this goes completely counter to the very definition of "true" (and let's remember the great PC safety net: I've made up my mind, so don't confuse me with the facts) -- indeed, "objective truth" is redundant, except in America -- there is something more insidious going on here.

Likewise in Frank Pastore's interesting article, he asks Who Speaks for America's Evangelicals? Again, something more insidious is going on here. Hint: This article should be entitled "Who gets to say who speaks for America's Evangelicals."

Every tryannical government began by removing God from the public sphere. Why? Without God, without objective truth, there is a vaccuum that is filled by government. Which is what pleases the Democrats so much.

What do I mean?

Well, consider a presidential election of the recent past. A particular candidate of the Democrats had the audacity to say that there are some people who drive pickups and have (gasp!) rebel flags on those pick ups, and they are often left out of political debates, but they have concerns we out to hear. Well, all of the other Dem candidates had a fit! They immediately distanced themselves from him -- even making clear that he doesn't represent the "mainstream" of the party -- explaining that we don't need to listen to those folks.

Now, ordinarily people would have found this to be untenable discrimination. But no such recriminations came from the MSP / EI community. Why? Because "those people" are bigots and racists, and therefore we do not need to listen to their concerns.

In short: they're not PC.

The difference between a Constitutionalist and a Democrat is that the Constitutionalist says that every person matters, and every person has rights, because certain rights are God-given and thus humans have no power -- or right! -- to play with them, decide who gets them; whereas, the Democrat says that there is no God, so all rights are within our purview, and thus we decide who will get them. This is the very heart of the PC movement.

A few other recent examples. The MSP / EI joined Moslems in expressing outrage over the depiction of the religion's founder in a Dutch cartoon. Among Moslem groups protesting such depiction was the Moselm Student Association of Michigan State University. One professor emailed them:

"As a professor of Mechanical Engineering here at MSU I intend to protest your protest. I am offended not by cartoons, but by more mundane things like beheadings of civilians, cowardly attacks on public buildings, suicide murders, murders of Catholic priests (the latest in Turkey ), burnings of Christian churches, the continued persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt , the imposition of Sharia law on non-Muslims, the rapes of Scandinavian girls and women (called "whores" in your culture), the murder of film directors in Holland , and the rioting and looting in Paris France.

This is what offends me, a soft-spoken person and academic, and many, many of my colleagues. I counsel your dissatisfied, aggressive, brutal, and uncivilized slave-trading Moslems to be very aware of this as you proceed with your infantile "protests."

If you do not like the values of the West - see the 1st Amendment - you are free to leave. I hope for God's sake that most of you choose that option. Please return to your ancestral homelands and build them up yourselves instead of troubling Americans."

Well, of course that ignited more protests in response. People called for his dismissal from the university!

Similarly, remember when 9/11 first happened? There were school districts who decided that we need to "understand" the Moslems in order to "solve" the "problem." So they mandated that students wear Moslem clothing and take Moslem names and learn the Koran. Have they ever decided to "understand" Christians by mandating students wear Christian clothing and take Christian names and learn the Bible?

Or more to the point, take for example the election in which both parties featured among their candidates ministers. The Dems, in fact, featured two. However, because of all the cry of "separation of Church and State," the minister on the Republican side decided to divest himself of his title and ministry and campaign as a business man. But neither of the Dem candidates did likewise, nor were they even asked to do so.

Which is again why I say that Patore's articles should more correctly ask who gets to decide who speaks for evangelicals? Remember, the MSP / EI community decided that Fr Richard McBrien and Fr  Andrew Greeley (two very anti-Catholic Catholic priests) get to speak for Catholics, and Bishop John Shelby Spong (also known as the "believe whatever you want as long as you come to Grace Cathedral" bishop) gets to speak for mainstream Christians, even though actual practicing Catholics and mainstream Protestants disagree vehemently with these MSP / EI annointed men.

Two last examples to keep in mind, should anyone believe this is just a matter of silencing un-PC religion. Consider Wal-Mart. They are constantly being harassed (including with lawsuits) by civil rights groups, pro-illegal immigrant groups -- noting a pattern? You should. That's the point. They're all groups who support the Dems, but until recently, (for those who, unlike the Conservative Ninja, do not follow the public disclosures of donation patterns by big business) Wal-Mart gave mostly to the Republicans. So, the Dems set in to shut them down. But they couldn't just say, "You don't like us, so we're closing you." That would be too obvious. No, they ignite groups one would be called bigoted or closed-minded (or whatever other buzz words they want to use) to oppose. Think I'm a little paranoid? Going a little too far?

Again, check the donations for other similar companies, or just big business in general. What you will find is that those who normally give more to Republicans than Democrats are having more political problems than those who donate more to DNC coffers. (Which is tilt toward the DNC in big business donation patters. It's not the mystery the MSP and the EI think it is.)

My last example should suffice on this last point. Ever hear of Enron? How about Global Crossing? Of course, we have all heard of the former, few if any of the latter. Why? Enron had more ties to the RNC, Global to the DNC. Hmmm.

Now, before anyone objects and misses the point of the post, let me hasten to say that if, for example Wal-Mart is guilty of unacceptable treatment of immigrants and minorities, than, by all means stop them! Not my point. The point is that many other companies who are in fact guilty of such treatment are not bothered, because of how much they swell DNC coffers.

Also, Enron should have the book thrown at them. Punish to the full extent of the law. Not my point. My point is that other companies are as guilty or more guilty, but continue on, business and usual, because they fill DNC purses to the breaking point.

And thus the point of the whole post: the Constitution and political correctness are polar opposites. The Constitution says that we all have certain inalienable rights, and, thus, there is nothing that any person can do about it. But political correctness says there are no inalienable rights, there are only rights and we decided who gets them. And right now, the PC MSP / EI is indeed saying that Christianity sucks and Isalm is awesome, and, moreover, that we will decide who gets to represent Evangelicals -- and all Christians, and even all religions, for that matter.



PS: A quick response to those who think the Moslems who bombed the Twin Towers are no better than Christians who bomb abortion clinics should keep in mind that whenever an apparent (or actual) Christian bombs an abortion clinic (or government building, or whatever), there is an immediate denunciation from all corners of Christianity -- Catholic and Protestant -- thus indicating that such bombers are the misguided fringe. No such denunciation follows Moslem atrocities, thus giving the impression that such atrocities are committed not by a misguided fringe, but by the true-believing mainstream. This point could be expanded, and there are other points. But this was supposed to be just a quick response.