Sometimes you see or read something that makes you stop in your tracks and ask "Really?", while tilting your head slightly and raising the pitch of your voice just a bit.
Ahhh, Newt Gingrich. No presidential election cycle would be complete without him pretending he's going to run for the office. I will admit, though, he is unusually committed to the prospect this go-round, which either is a saving grace for the country or makes you violently ill, depending on how much you hate yourself. And as part of that commitment, he recently gave a speech at the Cornerstone Church, the megachurch to end all megachurches led by Rev. John Hagee. You know, the guy who's endorsement John McCain dropped because he said Hitler was just acting out God's prophecy by killing the Jews? That guy's church.
Anyway, Gingrich gave a typical "I fear for the future of this country" address that has become a mainstay of conservative talking points. Within that address however, was the following:
I have two grandchildren: Maggie is 11; Robert is 9. I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time they're my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American.Ok. So. Newt here thinks that America will be overrun by atheists. But not just any atheists. Atheists who believe in Islam. Somehow this is a thing now.
Newt, you do know that atheists and Islamists are two very different, mutually exclusive things, don't you? Atheists don't believe in any kind of god, Islam believes in Allah, who is a god. By the very definition of the words we use to describe those groups, it is not possible for both traits to exist within the same body. You might as well say America will be overrun by violent pacifists, or funny Jeff Dunhams.
This ridiculous and, frankly, comical way of thinking is a problem for one of two reasons. Either 1) Newt really has no idea what he's talking about, or 2) He is merely using buzzwords to rally the conservative base. The first is a problem because, well, I don't really think we want someone who clearly has no understanding of what words mean in charge of everything. I mean, we tried that in 2000 and 2004, and you see how that turned out. (ZING!)
The second is the more troubling scenario, because it implies that a fairly sizable segment of our population does not understand that people who subscribe to a religious belief, specifically a belief involving a deity, cannot also be atheists. It implies that a sizable segment of our population is so easily swayed by the simple minded fear of something different than them. It's all buzzwords, and this bit of confusing logic seems to indicate that it doesn't even matter what those buzzwords are.
And we wonder why we're in the state we're in.