The religious war
by Felipe Zapata
The American landscape is dark and pitted after decades of religious battle, and no peace is in sight.
The two sides are evenly matched, so victory seems impossible, and the bloodshed splatters on.
Though the Christians outnumber the Maddowists, the latter offset their numerical inferiority by a bloodlust and ferocity not innate to their foes.
For the brain dead among you who have been distracted by your iPads or adding faux Friends to your Facebook list, here is a brief look at the crisis that threatens the nation’s heart.
Christ
1. The Christians. This is the numerically superior and far-older religion. Its churches and adherents gather primarily in America’s midsection.
They are weakened by a natural timidity, and their arsenals include little more than small-caliber weapons though they do have a few bazookas.
These bazookas are primarily fired from a foxhole called Fox News Channel.
The Christian leader is a man called Christ. Their manual is named The Holy Bible. Christians say that if you disagree with them you will be sent to a hot place called Hell.
In spite of this, they preach Love.
Maddow
2. The Maddowists. This numerically small religion was born in the late 20th Century. Its churches and adherents gather primarily on the coasts and at the university in Madison, Wisconsin.
Their righteousness and zealotry conceal their numerical paucity, plus their arsenal includes nuclear weapons.
These armaments are fired from fortresses called MSNBC, National Public Radio, The New York Times, what’s called the mainstream media (a misnomer), the ACLU and ivy-league universities. The list is long and their voices loud.
Maher
Maddowism resembles Hinduism in that their God has many faces with many names. Maddow is only one face. Another is called Maher. A third is called Moore. A forth is called Maureen.
This ever-smirking hydra confuses the Christians.
There is no central manual to Maddowism. Instead, they substitute university texts with titles like A Woman Needs a Man Like a Fish Needs a Bicycle or Kill Old White Men or Minorities Are Invariably Superior.
Moore
If you disagree with Maddowism, you will be sent to a Hell on Earth, above ground. Your occupation will be closed to you.
You will be shunned and labeled a racist. You will only be allowed to drink beer, never a noble pinot noir.
In spite of this, they preach inclusion.
The religious war between Maddowism and Christianity has been blazing for decades, and the Maddowists, in spite of their puny numbers, may be winning.
Maureen
They have stormed the White House and installed one of their own, the nation’s first Maddowist president.
Christian forces are in disarray, fighting among themselves with rotten tomatoes and water balloons.
Meanwhile, the Maddowist hydra hunkers down with martinis in its coastal fortresses, smirking.
And across the embattled land, Christmas trees still lie smoldering since December, the casualties of Maddowist mortars.
Good one. I would suggest an edit to Maddowists. Madcowists.
Carole: Madcowists would be unkind. I am a neutral observer from the United Nations.
Christians and a natural timidity made me laugh, I was thinking of their love in the past of branding and roasting folks at the stake. There are many in the faith group who would take your life in a second because of your lack of faith. Careful what you wish for…
Norm: It amuses me that anti-Christians must go back centuries to find the brutalities that Christians, and just about all big religions, have committed at some time.
On a smaller level, it sounds like the Democrats who still blame Dubya for our current economic mess while we are into the fourth year of a Maddowist administration.
To call me an anti-Christian is your right but it does not make it true. I am not a follower of Christ, it is true, I do understand the grace that resides in that faith but I fear the zealots in that faith who would use my love of their grace for their own political means, to take undo advantage of my live and let live way of thinking. We split the church and the state because of the church using the power of the state to its own ends. Yes, over two hundred years ago but many in the church would change that. We call them reactionaries. The folks with the matches two hundred years ago were no different from today’s nutjobs, two hundred years ago they were the state.
Norm: I hastily and apologetically retract my “anti-Christian” remark. I insert “non-Christian.” Problem is that so many folks left of center, and I think you reside there, are indeed anti-Christian. I made a blanket statement and overstepped in your case.
Should have known better since you are one of the better examples of the leftward-tilting.
I don’t think any Christians were lighting matches to people just 200 years ago. The Salem Witch Trials, for instance, were in the late 1600s, but perhaps I quibble. Or perhaps my history is lacking. Anything is possible.
Sweet mercy! Did you not get enough jabs and stabs over that last post? HAHA! Now you’ve gone and insulted their gods.
Oh well, pass me a beer.
Becky: I never tire of this. The challenge is merely finding a fresh way to do it.
Bottoms up!
I agree with Norm. A look back at the history of the original inhabitants of Mexico shows just how mercy-less and bloodthirsty the pious churchfolks can become (or are to start with).
I am glad to be firmly entrenched on the correct side of this war!
Croft: What I told Norm.
A great essay. I love how you tie it to religion — I suspect a country of atheists would get along much better than we do today. My only problem with your piece is its linking ‘Maureen’ to any particular religion (i.e. political association). That woman adheres to no religious or political affiliation – she’ll take on anyone regardless of pedigree and she does in no uncertain terms. One need to look no further than her savaging of Bill Clinton during his presidency. The media would benefit from more like her.
Thanks, Brian. Regarding Maureen, I don’t think there is any doubt she swings way left. To me, at least. Yes, she will jump on Clinton and has jumped on Obama. But still …
The fervor and devotion to their Maddowist cause is no less than the degree of fervor you would find in a meeting house of Holy Rollers. It’s their religion. They just don’t recognize it as such. Indeed, Maddowists would be appalled at the thought.
What you say is absolutely correct. But the same degree of fervor resides in the rants of the Tea Party sorts. The problem we have is that both sides are hurling vitriol while making no effort to communicate in a reasonable fashion. This is nothing new — it has been going on for years and makes me want to go sit on a Costa Rican beach and forget about it all. In some respects American society is little different than the problems associated with the cultural/religious ‘wars’ in other parts of the world including Europe.
Brian: It makes me want to sit on a mountaintop in Mexico.
So I did.
awww-come on felipe, give us christians a break. we don’t all think that nonbelievers will rot in hell.
que Dios te bendiga,
teresa in nagoya
Teresa: I know you don’t, but many do. Perhaps most. In any event, it’s an interesting aspect of the religion, that hole in the Earth where sinners burn. Kinda funny when you think on it.
If this were truly a war, we all know the side on which I would stand. But, because I stand on the side that offers grace, I cannot use the language of war to describe my faith.
Steve: It is a war. Don’t think otherwise, and I know on which side you stand, the same side on which I stand, even though I, oddly in this case, am no Christian.
I am even less a Maddowist.
I think Ghandi said it best, when he said, ” I like your Christ, I don’t like your christians”.
Francisco. Ghandi and I agree, at least as far as some Christians are concerned. They can be good folks, however.
Ghandi would not have liked Maddowists, I do not think.
When some atrocity is committed by a Muslim, the headlines are quick to proclaim, “Muslim Extremist Tries To Blow Up Aircraft!” When a similar atrocity is committed by a Christian, the headlines do not say, “American Christians Bomb Iraq”, “Christian Blows Up Building In Oklahoma City” or “Christian Student Shoots Five Classmates”. Just sayin’.
Croft: Not surprisingly, I beg to differ. The news media, in most instances, bends over so far backward trying to justify Muslim terrorism (and not call that spade a spade) that they are almost in a position to kiss their own backsides.
The big-bucks “mainstream” media is firmly in the Maddowist camp, and Maddowists are far quicker to blame the U.S. for whatever than to blame the disjointed, dictatorial, woman-oppressing Arab world for anything.
Oh, the irony.
Of course, nobody says American Christians bombed Iraq because it was not done for religion. It was done due to a (perhaps misguided) notion of national interest. Or perhaps because Dubya woke up in a bad mood that day.
Muslim terrorism is done for religion. You are comparing bananas with Chevrolets.
I do believe people confuse Christianity with religion. Christianity is based on grace and a personal relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ. Religion is man’s attempt to gain God’s favor through his own human works. Much evil has been done in the name of religion.
America was founded on Christian principals, which provided freedom to believers and unbelievers alike. Principals like individual volition, marriage (between a man and a woman), family and national entity. It’s the erosion of these principles that’s getting us into trouble.
Jackie: Good points, especially about the erosion of principles.