Ah, this topic warrants my attention.  :-)

Unless one lives in the insular world of Religious Right media -- which includes but isn't limited to the world of talk radio -- most people, including conservatives and Republicans, truly have no idea just how far out and dangerous the movement to which Chad Vegas belongs has become.

It is a true nascent fascism, a dangerous religious nationalism that gauges one's patriotism, your legitimacy as an American citizen -- indeed, your legitimacy as a human being -- by whether or not you are of the "proper" religious and political affiliation.

In the eyes of this cult -- and it really, truly is a political cult -- a prerequisite to coming to Christ is embracing a thoroughly freedom-hating, militant subsection of the Republican Party.  If you don't embrace their politics to the letter, to the very last letter, you cannot legitimately call yourself a true American or a true Christian.

I'd wager that most people who consider themselves conservatives have little clue just how fanatical and deranged a movement is hiding behind the banner of "conservative."  It is a major factor in the schism in local GOP politics -- between the moderate if resented "Abernathy Machine" and the nascent fascism of the Ashburn / "Bakersfield Republican Assembly" wing.

Mainstream Bakersfield, including mainstream conservative Bakersfield, has just gotten a taste, a sample earful, of the true depths of hate that is growing within a certain faction of the GOP.  And judging by the comments that I've seen, most of you are shocked and appalled.

Good.

Bakersfield, I believe, has just been awakened.  It's past time.

BTW, Lois, you put the following very well:

"When his seat is up in 2008, let’s find someone who can help lead a diverse and growing high school district that deserves the brightest minds focused on education, not social engineering."

That's exactly what it is: social engineering.  They'll crucify Hillary Clinton for saying "it takes a village to raise a child" -- but all that changes when that village is a latter-day Puritan colony.

Then, the village can have all the power it wants to raise your children, whether you like it or not.

I rarely announce my blogging vacations, but this topic demanded some intervention.  ;-)

Looks like time to revisit this topic:

http://people.bakersfield.c...

OOC, Lois, why do you say "...he wants to ram religion down the throats of high school kids?"  That phrase, "ram [whatever] down our throats" conjures up a violent, beat-them-into-submission image in my mind.   Phrases like this also make me think of paranoia and pandemonium; people getting hysterical about what might happen next.

I have mentioned before that I am not in favor of Vegas's poster proposal, but I don't believe he's trying to "ram" anything down anyone's *throats.*  Describing his proposal as such is an exaggeration and a bit over the top.  His actions aren't that much of an all-out assault; it's more like he's trying to get his (and Jacquie Sullivan's) foot in the door with the hope of perhaps adding more religious reference stuff later. 

I know it sounds incredible, but it's true.

Chad has written elsewhere that state governments shouldn't be required to respect the Bill of Rights.  The reason for arguing such a position is to ram religion down people's throats by law -- the specific argument is that the 14th Amendment wasn't meant to enforce the Bill of Rights upon the states (wrong), leaving states free to legally establish official religions and force people by law to live by the rules of the official government religion.

I know it sounds incredible.  But I can document it in the movement's own words if necessary.

I'm not entirely sure he had a mind to begin with (in regards to the first post).

I hope he's reading this.  I hope he realizes that he's just alienated himself from a good many parents, citizens, and voters.   I'm going to start using his name as a word  to define religious snafus. 

Vegas -verb: 1) to run for an office in which you pledge to serve the people but are clearly only planning on serving yourself.   2) to attempt to ignore the establishment clause.  3) to define patriotism by one's allegiance to a higher power.  4) to attempt to systematically encourage evangelism in places where it does not belong.

Used in a sentence: 

"I was going to vote no on that issue, but now I think I'll Vegas."

"He totally Vegased the secular nature of the public school classroom."

Vegas -adj: 1) describing an act of dubious origins in which one has put the desires of self above the needs of all your constituents.

"His political strategy was vegas."

Vegas - noun: 1) an act of dubious origins in which one has put the desires of self above the needs of all your constituents.

"He pulled a Vegas."

color9:

I will admit my language is colorful. But when Vegas began this discussion as an all or nothing proposal, not even giving teachers the OPTION of putting up these posters, to me, it's forced.

Chad has written elsewhere that state governments shouldn't be required to respect the Bill of Rights.  The reason for arguing such a position is to ram religion down people's throats by law -- the specific argument is that the 14th Amendment wasn't meant to enforce the Bill of Rights upon the states (wrong), leaving states free to legally establish official religions and force people by law to live by the rules of the official government religion.

I've taken a grand total of one semester of Constitutional Law, and Chad is so far off base, he isn't even in the ballpark. He's three or four miles down the road, looking at the map for directions...

Vegas is an idiot. I can't speak for all- but I consider myself an atheist and I don't understand how I can hate something I don't believe in.  I just don't have a make-believe "father" to blame all my problems on, or complain to about my problems.  Everything that happens in my life is usually a result of something I have done- good or bad.

Chad you ignorant slut!

When I attended Golden State Jr. High, I remember from Government class, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

"We the People of the United States" is more inclusive for all Americans!

Roy, of course I acknowledge what you say is true.  I just talk about one side's hate more because that side's hate is more likely to adversely affect me personally at this point in time.  It's human nature.  Imperfect, but still nature.

If we had Tipper Gore for President and Democratic majorities in Congress, and the ascendant worldview of the Democratic leadership resembled Andrea Dworkin, you'd hear me warn of the dangers of radical feminism -- and it isn't pretty.

Heck, if that were the case, and the Republican Party went back to its roots, I'd consider joining the Abernathy Machine.

BTW, let me add...

Last month I was down in L.A., and I saw a billboard for a progressive (left-wing) radio station.  So, I turned it on.

I listened to that and thought to myself, "gee, I didn't know I was that conservative."

Or maybe I did, but it's been so long that I've actually been in a position to be irritated by the other side that I forgot.

Vegas is an idiot. I can't speak for all- but I consider myself an atheist and I don't understand how I can hate something I don't believe in.

Then you believe in Vegas? You obviously hate him. He's not an idiot, he's a politician evoking reactions just like those on "your side" do.

To call him an idiot denotes hatred of him, and since you say you cannot hate somethin you don't believe in, you must believe in him.

If you say you "don't hate him" or just "pity" him or some such tripe you are being disingenuous.

Maybe you just need your "load towed"!

I believe many conservative Christians, myself included, can be overly invested in wanting to change people, to shape them into our own images. 

The majority of Christians are everyday people who are "believers." My mom and my aunt and uncle are Christians, but they don't go around trying to convert others. They just live their own lives. It's that smaller percentage of Christians who go around saying "praise God" every fifteen seconds and trying to coerce others into doing things their way (not necessarily the Bible's way) that so often give Christians a bad name. Those "Christians" who don't have all of their chairs pulled up to the table - like this Vegas character - should be ostracized. Don't even waste your breath praying for them.

Robb wrote, "I believe this is why the Vegases drop the God-hate bomb first."

I was thinking along the lines of something similar.

Those of us who pay attention to the activities of political movements we oppose "know what they are up to."  Trouble is, when the opposing side pulls something outrageous, anyone who isn't a political junkie (and that's most people, folks) don't understand what all the rage is about.  All they see and hear is the rage, and those who are outraged are simply seen as ragers.

Yeah, I think that's why the Chads of the world drop the first bombs -- they know that most people will see the rage -- and only the rage -- of the opponents. 

(That's why I jump all over people who make the "liberal media" claim -- if there were such a thing, there would be voices in the media explaining "what they're up to.")

But without that media voice, explaining "what they're up to" convincingly is difficult because it's so utterly unbelievable.  I'll stop short of Godwinning the thread, but history buffs can come up with another example of something that was so unbelievable that it was difficult to convince many people of its reality.

That's why I have devoted particular effort to analyzing and chronicling this movement in their own words.  That way, when they say something that unbelievable, I can say "here, read this."

"They yell and they're hostile"

Interesting.  As a World Can't Waiter who was actually at the meeting with Jared Thomas, I can attest to the fact that we were completely quiet during the entire portion of ther meeting that we stayed for.  No cat calls, no boos, nothing.  And as far as I know, this was our only time being in the same vicinity as him.  Even before the meeting, we were rather quiet in the parking lot far from the entrance of the h igh school headquarters.  Besides interviews with the press, I can't remember saying anything.  No chants, no agitations. 

Interestingly, he had made the local talk show circuit that morning, and plenty was said about the press release we sent out.  I actually had to pull it out to see if we had actually said the things we claimed to have.  Nope.  Some major deceptions.  On both the Jaz McKay and Inga Barks shows, both hosts claimed we charged Vegas with leading the campaign to install the teaching of "Intelligent Design" into the Frazier Park School.  What we actually said was he only commented about it.  "Around the debate over teaching "Intelligent Design" in Frazier Park, he denounced evolution - upheld by the scientific community as rigorously verified truth - as "nonsense" and said that "teaching nonsense is a discredit to our district."  Interesting in light of his denials on the talk shows, he upheld his belief that the earth was created in 5 days and that teaching science was a waste of time (with Inga Barks adding that students might as well as be playing with playdough than be taught evolution).  He even added that he wouldn't bring up the teaching of "creation science" but only because he doesn't currently have the votes.

Much was made of us calling him a fascist.  McKay even wewnt as far as to say we were calling for Nuremburg trials for Vegas and his ilk (nothing was ever stated about that).  What we actually said was "he and his cohorts work to make the schools pliant to the will of an increasingly powerful (and fascist) right wing, to restrict the exercise of free expression, and limit severely what can be taught."  Oddly, for a host such as McKay to come to Vegas' rescue over the use of the word fascist, he (McKay) rather revealed that much of what we said is accurate, given his opinion that we are the most dangerous people in this country (he conceded Al Queda is more dangerous worldwide).  According to McKay (joining in with Vegas' POV), we were commie hippies who, if he ran the country, would be shipped off to Guantanamo. 

I'm sorry, but the view of The World Can't Wait is that it is a form of fascism when people are pressured and threatened into a narrowly defined viewpoint of what makes a citizen.  People won't dare speak out due to fear of being seen as unpatriotic.  This can already be observed by Vegas' recent interview in the Californian where he "would be hard pressed to come to the conclusion that a group of men who have been elected and sworn to uphold the Constitution would vote against posting it. If that's the kind of elected officials they are, people need to rethink whether or not those are the kinds of men that they want in office -- the kind of men that don't even support the constitution they're sworn to uphold being taught to the students".

As the World Can't Wait's call says:  "Your government is moving each day closer to a theocracy, where a narrow and hateful brand of Christian fundamentalism will rule."

bnfl - I think Roysan might be using a line from the early days of Saturday Night Live's "Weekend Update."  Dan Akroyd used to forcefully say that to Jane Curtain ("Jane, you ignorant slut!") to point out she was wrong about something she'd just *reported* in the weekend news.  It's not particularly funny in this context, though.

Okay, Roy -- I can see how you might have missed it.  It was couched in legal lingo, but he was also ridiculing the "so-called" incorporation doctrine.  If his legal theory had his way, the Second Amendment wouldn't protect you, either.

Let me ask you: why do you think this is a good idea?  Seriously.  I think it's such a dangerous idea that large areas of the US would turn into sectarian Iraq or Afghanistan overnight if we adopted it.

I'm sincerely wondering what you see in it.

I should correct everything I have said, although Chico missed my point of not hating something that does not exist.  Chad Vegas' proposal is idiotic.  That was not fair to completely label him as an idiot.  Chico's assumption that I hate Chad Vegas was idiotic.  But to re-emphasize my initial intent; do christians hate Vishnu?  I don't know for sure because I am not a christian, but I would assume they do not because I would assume they do not believe Vishnu exists.  Do I hate god?  How can I hate god?  I do not believe the christian god or any god exists.  Do I hate the tooth fairy?  Do I hate santa claus?  Do I hate the easter bunny?  Give me a break Chico, et al.  Is it clear what my intentions were?  Not that Chad Vegas is an idiot, but the other part was my main point.  Geeezzz.