DEAR MSM, PLEASE CLARIFY YOUR DEFINITION OF "CHRISTIAN" AND "RELIGIOUS RIGHT"
The mainstream media, or more specifically the majority of journalists that populate it, is at it again (yes, i love these generalizations:). Two articles caught my eye:
"Anti-Muslim Riot in Nigeria Turns Deadly"
"Court Backs Religious Right to Hallucinogenic Tea"
The first article assumes that those rioting against Muslims in retaliation for at least 18 people dead and 30 churches burned down were Christians. Just because someone lives in a "predominantly Christian city" or because they attend church does not make them "Christian." For those that believe in Christ as their savior and the Bible as the undeniable truth, I believe their faith would have led them to a different path of action. It would be interesting to dig deeper into the history of religious turmoil in Nigeria, an analysis of this nation's Christian and Muslim organizations, and the practicing faiths of its religious leaders. I assume you'll find some glaring weakness or corruption under the masks of these "Christians."
In a more obvious twist against Christians, the ABC News article refers to a religious cult as the "religious right" in its headline. This is amusing because typically "Christians," or those "born-again loonies," are considered the "religious right." Also President Bush is labelled and grouped into this category. So why would a "religious right" administration want to shut down the practice of a "religious right" church? Maybe it should have been described as "religious left" group? This might be more appropriate since they sound like a hippie group masking as a church.
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a congregation in New Mexico may use hallucinogenic tea as part of a four-hour ritual intended to connect with God.
In their first religious freedom decision under Chief Justice John Roberts, the justices moved decisively to keep the government out of a church's religious practice. In the decision, Roberts wrote that federal drug agents should have been barred from confiscating the hoasca tea of the Brazil-based church and that the Bush administration had failed to meet its burden under a federal religious freedom law to show that it should be allowed to ban "the sect's sincere religious practice."
The real definition most religious scholars would use is "cult." This church is considered a cult, but "Court Backs Religious Cult to Hallucinogenic Tea" doesn't sound as sexy does it? It would be a great missed opportunity to hit the Bush administration or those "fanatical" Christians with a good blow, wouldn't it? Yeah, we crazy Christians love those illegal drugs and get high to commune with God. Whatever.
The tea, which contains an illegal drug known as DMT, is considered sacred to members of O Centro Espirita Beneficiente Uniao do Vegetal. Members of the church, which has a blend of Christian beliefs and South American traditions, believe they can understand God only by drinking the tea twice a month at four-hour ceremonies. (full article)