Voice in the Wilderness

You are very clever to have picked up on Islamic fascism to characterize those who oppose the Bush régime. It appears to be their latest attempt at describing their enemy as evil and world wide. The term also helps to justify the use of military force in response to such a culture or government. The truth is that our enemies aren’t concentrated in a few countries where invading the country and installing a different form of government would reduce the treat.

You can look the term up yourself. Fascist dictatorships have been a relatively common form of government during last century. Fascist states are always ruled by a single military dictator who derives power from the elite class and/or party of the country. Complete and highly centralized power is critical. Civil rights are never a concern. Rule of law is never part of the culture.

Nationalism, control of financial systems and manufacturing are usually an important part of the mix. They are almost always military dictatorships. Ethnicity is important and low tolerance for minorities is common. Extreme ambition in the name of nationalism and national security is the usual theme.

A biblical worldview is not the answer to the world’s problems. Our difficulty understanding other cultures is. Our current administration seems determined to use conventional warfare to solve what are primarily political problems. Intolerance and fear of other cultures is the enemy in the United States. Our refusal to secure our own country for fear of a financial impact on multinational companies is the enemy. Our refusal to conserve energy is the enemy. A focus on the needs of the citizens of this country first and big business later is part of the answer. Big business and a very narrow view of morality is our focus. Beliefs never facts drive decision making in this country.
 

I notice in your prelude to the point you are trying to make, you leave out the rest of Congressman Dingell's comment, in which he condemns the violent methods chosen by Hezbollah. He was trying to make it clear that in trying to broker any type of peace agreement between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon, arbitrating fairly while openly favoring one party over the other AT BEST gives the appearance of impropriety. An arbiter's impartiality is crucial to the trust of both parties in political matters, and acknowledging grievances on both sides objectively is one of the first steps to resolving differences.

I think John Dingell did call wrong "wrong" when he condemned the violence employed by Hezbollah. And he also chose to go beyond the incredibly unuseful stance of "Well they started it", and work toward resolution.