Do I have that about right?
So... when do we get to rout these guys?
I know that some people like to turn a blind eye to the doings of one religion while sounding the alarms at the doings of another, but to me, they're all the same. A theocracy is a theocracy, whichever imaginary friend may be at the head of it, and I don't want either one. We see what theocracy has done for the Middle East; it turned what was once the most advanced area on the planet - the cradle of civilization, in fact - to one of the most backward, miserable, behind-everybody-else societies there is. They f'ed up by allowing that there; we should not allow that here.
This is already corrupting the government to the core, remaking it:
Even as an athiest, I'm all for religious rights for all Americans, because it's a right. If you believe in a god I'll admit that I think you're sorely deluded (although usually well-meaning), but we should all have the right to believe what we want, as crazy as it may be. Some think that not believing in a god is delusional, and I want that right regardless of what they think, so, I want to protect their right, too. But if you think that Ashcroft's people are going to return the favor, I'm afraid you're naive. Bush's father didn't even consider athiests to be citizens, and Ashcroft's people are more militant about it than that. You should read some of the death threats that Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins got for publishing their books. Pat Robertson is as big a threat to me personally as Osama Bin Laden is... and possibly bigger, since Bin Laden's chance of weilding any real power stateside is much more limited. As much as I am certain they'd like to, no Muslim has yet spilled any of my blood. Pat Robertson types, however, have.
Here's more analysis of what this means:
I daresay that's not limited to just future Democratic administrations, though... I think the Republicans have just as much to worry about from these people, because I don't believe that the Republicans want to replace democracy with theocracy, either. And these people aren't loyal to the Republicans, primarily... they're loyal to the agenda of destroying the divide between church and state. This does not bode well for either party, nor does it bode well for the majority of Christians, who stand to profit from Robertson's actions the same way that moderate Muslims have profited from Bin Laden's - i.e., with extreme detriment. A theocracy would be no favor to the religion, because the separation of church and state works both ways; it also protects the chuch from government interference, which is never a good thing. Ask the Russians.
So why do we attack the one batch of sleeper-cell-planting fanatics so vigorously while turning a blind eye to the other? It's all just different flavors of the exact same enemy... we should fight them all if this war is to be anything but a hollow sham.