I'MMA LET YOU FINISH
So long as rabid theocrats are allowed, encouraged to set their religious agenda, this is the kind of nonsense that must follow.
Gee - seems to me that this little problem was settled back in the 1700s, wasnt it? Why wouldnt remarks noting that be suitable, if replies to bigotry become necessary?
Here is this same meme in a truly appaling pice of shit from Cal Thomams
http://www.jewishworldreview.com...ols/
thomas1.asp
Right on! The best way to win this game is not to play.
These religious nuts, without realizing it, are helping shape the debate for the elections.
The vast majority of Americans see this kind of religiosity as fringe crap. The more this shit gets identified as boilerplate republican, the better.
The phrase "republican bigotry" should roll of the tongue as easily as "golden arches" or "free speech".
and here is a truly appalling anti-semitic and homophobic remark from Anne Coulter.
"Not only that, but many Democrats have cracker-barrel humble origins stories and a Jew or lesbian in the family. Dick Gephardt's campaign platform is that his father was a milkman, his son almost died and his daughter is a lesbian. Vote for me!"
The other story that has been flogged like a dying horse is that "Dean quit his Episcopal church over a bike path!!!"
I don't know the ins and outs of the story in question, but I don't find it horrendous that Dean may have decided to part ways with a church over something like this. People leave churches for all sorts of reasons, or is that now a sign of Jesus-hatred?
Silly me, I thought people might respect his cleaving unto his first wife and all, even if her faith isn't the right flavor.
I don't agree. I don't think Dems have to cloak themselves in religious vestments, but they souldn't ignore it either. Chimpie shouldn't be allowed to hog this issue.
Dems could say that the GOP response to other people's religious leanings is:
"My god is bigger than their god"
(courtesy of Gen. Boykin).
This is one more symptom of the cancer of allowing Republicans to frame every issue. Dems are resigned to just react on this stuff. They refuse to frame religious issues in their own terms, so by default the radical right does it for them. Bunch of wimps. School prayer and the Ten Commandments is not the only approach to relgious policy in the U.S. Why do the Dems let it be? Probably the same reason they were all shouting the Pledge of Allegiance on the Capital Steps. Morons, can't think for themselves. Have to follow the Republican lead.
Democrats don't have to stand for Republicans framing this issue. They should attack their programs, on every issue the Republicans come up way short of a gospel standard. They should quote the Letter of James, especially where he asks the Christians who it is who oppresses them, the poor or the rich.
Let 'em yap. They do more damage to themselves. There's a finite number of bigots, and the rest of the population doesn't respond to the hate message. Let 'em yap.
Atrios, I think this is the one issue where you're dead wrong.
Religion, like it or not, matters a great deal in this country, and protestant Christianity above all.
Polls confirm this.
That said, all Dems have to do is use the language of faith effectively andnot seem hostile to it; I don't think they have to actually do anything differently.
If a Dem. gets into a debate pickle over religion, I think s/he better be ready to say something that doesn't sound atheistic.
it isn't that I don't recognize the importance of religion, it's that the democrats can never win this battle as long as they're playing it on the republican's field.
A long term religion strategy I support - a short term one is pointless.
A bigot's a bigot. Jesus hated them.
End of story.
As far as that stupid "Dean quit his church over a bike path" thing. Dean has said, essentially, that he felt his church wasn't being community-minded enough. So he started attending a different church. End of story.
Besides, wasn't George Bush busy being a coke-fried, alcoholic way back when Dean was concerning himself with whether his church was meeting their obligations as a steward of the community?
Democrats don't have to stand for Republicans framing this issue.
EPT
hate to point this out but Welfare Reform is essentially based on a Protestant work ethic, and we all know where Defense of Marriage came from.
Clinton signed both of them.
Republicans have set the agenda since Reagan was in office.Clintons adoption of Republican policies did absolutely nothing for the Democratic cause.
It only prolonged their victories in the social and political arena.
Notice that the subtler wingnuts, like David Brooks, are pimping the religious angle for all it's worth?
Remember, folks: If David Brooks tells you to do something, do the exact opposite.
Once again Rethugs have taken a very grey area and reduced it to a simple black or white, with us or against us, my way or the highway argument. The Republican views of Religion is just like everything else. It's goes something like this.
Everyone's entitled to their opinions and beliefs of God, but yours are wrong if they aren't exactly the same as we Republicans. End result you are then morally bankrupt if you have beliefs in God and religion that aren't exactly the same as our morally superior religion and God. We tolerate all religions and Gods as long as they are in strict line with ours. God is on our side, He told us, therefore Republicans are omnipotent.
hate to point this out but Welfare Reform is essentially based on a Protestant work ethic, and we all know where Defense of Marriage came from.
Clinton signed both of them.
Clinton did and I didn't vote for him in 1996 because of it. I'm not a Protestant, don't believe in the Protestant work ethic. Work is something the Bush clan and the rest of the portfolio grasping bunch of Republican "christians" seems pretty immune from. Anyone, name a real job that Georgus W. has held? A question asked two or three months ago in these threads and for which an answer is still waiting.
Here is this same meme in a truly appaling pice of shit from Cal Thomams
http://www.jewishworldreview.com...ols/
thomas1.asp
innerloopster | Email | 01.03.04 - 11:36 am | #
Frankly, everything Cal Thomas writes is an appalling POS, at least to me. He was a right-wing apologist hack long, long before the advent of Fox News and the current crop of crap-peddlers.
Once again Rethugs have taken a very grey area and reduced it to a simple black or white, with us or against us, my way or the highway argument. The Republican views of Religion is just like everything else. It's goes something like this.
Everyone's entitled to their opinions and beliefs of God, but yours are wrong if they aren't exactly the same as we Republicans. End result you are then morally bankrupt if you have beliefs in God and religion that aren't exactly the same as our morally superior religion and God. We tolerate all religions and Gods as long as they are in strict line with ours. God is on our side, He told us, therefore Republicans are omnipotent.
emal
Not quite true, if anything their type of Protestantism is far more fractured than say Catholicism.
You have born agains who don't think anyont will enter heaven unless they are born again. You have charismatics who think everyone who has real religion must speak in tongues and exhibit strange contortions.
And
Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.
Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood R768 and was praying this to himself: `God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. `I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.' But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, `God, be merciful to me, the sinner!' I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.
When you pray, you are not to be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the
The place where we lose political ground is when Democrats do things like refer to God as "your imaginary friend." People find that really annoying.
Personally, I find it a little annoying that liberals are more likely to listen respectfully to someone insisting she's channeling a 2,000-year-old Mayan shaman than a Christian talking about faith.
Respect everyone and play nice.
Peanut: Besides, wasn't George Bush busy being a coke-fried, alcoholic way back when Dean was concerning himself with whether his church was meeting their obligations as a steward of the community?
Suggestion for a new campaign slogan: "Dean or an alcoholic cokehead." I think they should but that shit right out there. Make Bush actually respond to it this time around. He is running for office again. He should have to answer that question again, err... for the first time.
Personally, I find it a little annoying that liberals are more likely to listen respectfully to someone insisting she's channeling a 2,000-year-old Mayan shaman than a Christian talking about faith.
Respect everyone and play nice.
Susan from Philly
Probably because the Mayan-channelling hippie probably won't tell us that we're hellbound sinners.
I think the cavalier dismissals of the Christian God you see here is more the result of what a highly visible populaition of Christian fanatics DO and SAY to ensure that we never take them seriously.
Respect cuts both ways, and the fanatics are generally pretty intolerant ... whereas anyone nuts enough to channel a shaman probably won't be too critical of my beliefs.
"Personally, I find it a little annoying that liberals are more likely to listen respectfully to someone insisting she's channeling a 2,000-year-old Mayan shaman than a Christian talking about faith."
As a left/liberal, I'll say it's most likely that they're both full of crap.
And what the fuck is so wrong with not being religious at all? Or not being a nationalist?
Why does a person only have worth if they believe in tribal superstitions and think bravery in killing is the highest ideal in our culture.
We weren't measuring Democrats by these standards a couple of elections ago. Or even in the last one. This is a sad state of affairs that we have to compete with Bush on these too stupid levels.
Marry me, Joe Briefcase.
That's what the Dems response should be. Yeah, I believe in God. I also believe in giving you a job. Since you can't tithe if you have no paycheck, what's more important to you?
A.
Respect cuts both ways, and the fanatics are generally pretty intolerant
Great, but why we restrict it to believers? Why not judge every group by the worst excesses of their worst members and then treat all of them they way we expect them to treat us?
All Dean has to do is deflect these queries into his religion onto the blatant hypocrisy that is everything Bush. The Chimp a Christian? C'mon, now. Everything the guy does is un-Christian.
What is that rule about politics? Don't answer the question that they ask you, answer the question you wanted them to ask you.
(Yes, that tidbit of wisdom was supplied by R.MacNamera in "The Fog of War," a decent piece of filmmaking...)
All Dean has to do is deflect these queries into his religion onto the blatant hypocrisy that is everything Bush. The Chimp a Christian? C'mon, now. Everything the guy does is un-Christian.
What is that rule about politics? Don't answer the question that they ask you, answer the question you wanted them to ask you.
(Yes, that tidbit of wisdom was supplied by R.MacNamera in "The Fog of War," a decent piece of filmmaking...)
Oops on the double post...
Cal Thomas,
" ..The vast majority of Americans see this kind of religiosity as fringe crap." Too true and this Australian hopes that they make their way to the voting booths in large numbers in November 2004 and that all that 'diebolding' won't steal another election for the Repugs.
Sorry but was supposed to read "capn mike" of course! (01.03.04 @ 11:41 am)
My point is, I don't care what you think about someone else's beliefs - you still need to refrain from active disparagement. It is, at the very least, the basis of productive discourse in a civil society.
As to judging all Christians by the right wing - what a silly argument. Do you condone attacking all Muslims because of 9/11? Of course not. Would you even dream of making nasty cracks about a Muslim woman's head scarf? Unlikely.
Religion is nothing more than a vessel that shapes someone's spiritual impulses. It's a combination of mythology, culture and an occasional dose of pure communion with the cosmos. To attack any religion on the basis of how some assholes customize it to fit their own unconscious compulsions is beyond stupid. It's ignorant, it's rude and IT'S POLITICAL SUICIDE.
But then, some people would rather be right.
And 'Phoenix Woman' on 01.03.04 @ 12:45 pm: good advice on David Brooks, that gasbag par excellence!
When people question Dean's faith, he should reply, "I respect your right to worship God as you choose, and will uphold the right of every American to practice their religion." There's no point or profit in getting into a pissing match about god.
"And what the fuck is so wrong with not being religious at all? Or not being a nationalist?". You have just made my Sunday, Joe Briefcase.
And respect does cut both ways, 'nads'! Please take note, 'Susan from Philly' (I'm a lapsed Catholic myself btw).
Susan from Philly is right-- there is a hostile reaction to religion from many on our side. It's poor politics and very rude.
And as a Democratic Catholic voter ( note the order ) it's not fun to see.
I can understand the anger but the mocking is hard to take.
Susan from Philly: "As to judging all Christians by the right wing - what a silly argument". What high-faluting words! What about judging all Roman Catholics by just some of the pronouncements, encyclicals, etc. emanating from the Vatican? Not confessing to masturbation gets you to hell, taking contraceptives is 'sinful behaviour' (and in countries where the RC rules supreme like Poland, you can't get contraceptives in wide areas, so that's not an empty threat) and declaring homosexuals 'objectively disordered' to name just three! You would of course reply that any Catholic with half a brain left does not follow these rules but then they are just lucky to live in a country where such crazy statements are frowned upon and where most people do not enact laws enforcing them.
Susan's right. The vast majority of Christian true believers in the country are not fundamentalist and for many if not most, their religion is not the end-all, be-all of their lives. It's both impolite and counter-productive to disparage their beliefs.
That having been said, Dean took a lot of flak about a week ago for "suddenly" getting religion. FWIW, I think he handled the issue beautifully, alluding to the New England cultural tradition of being private about one's religious life. That sets him up to avoid having to get too drawn in to out and out theology in the campaign. Plus, it's the type of view that resonates with the vast majority of Christian believers in this country.
"What high-faluting words! "
"Not confessing to masturbation gets you to hell"
Ever respectful. No wonder we can't win anything.
Piss off as many fellow Democrats as we can.
It's these threads as much as anything that make me sad for our country. The r's don't have to lift a finger. We will do the work for them.
Helga,
Prejudice does not justify prejudice and closed mindedness does not justify closed mindedness. I have no problem with you or anyone else to criticize specific bigoted or closed minded teachings of any church, but when you start making blanket condemnations, you're no better than they are.
I admit that I've given up disparaging religions and the religious, for the same reason I have trouble talking with Repubs on policy -- they are so emotionally convinced they are right that no logical argument, no facts, no nothing will sway them. So, as long as they are not hurting me or mine, I let 'em go on.
Remember that our Constitution was an attempt to do something which really hadn't been tried before: to create a system of laws that applied pretty much to everybody, the tall and the small -- no religion, no royalty, no caste system (yes, yes, I know all about minorities and women, leave off, you know what I mean). Intending to specifically leave those things out, in fact. And, by and large, it's worked, although some aspects of it take decades to shake out now and again, which is what has me worried right now.
Right-wing religious people don't listen to us because they know in their hearts that they're right already, no matter the facts or the laws
What Helga and Paul are not picking up on is, it's always actually worse than you think. Political appeals to religion are not appeals to religion. Political appeals to religion are appeals to the cruel, backward, bigot populations in every state. Compare states' rights (racism), employment/education standards (racism and homophobia, "hiring the right people for the job..."), etc..
A respectful, truly religious politician would not drag God into it in the first place.
-- and that's what we have to find a way around.
I'm certain I've made my point poorly.
I don't disagree with you kei & yuri, it's just the seemingly instant mocking of Christian/Catholics by our side that just frustrates me.
There is to me a natural alliance between liberal politics and Christianity and it pisses me off that we concede that to the lunkheads.
That said, the more distance between the two the better, i guess.
"A respectful, truly religious politician would not drag God into it in the first place."
And that, I should have mentioned-- is spot on
Filkertom: "I admit that I have given up disparaging religions ..." Thanks for putting my thoughts into words. What I got from Susan's comment was certainly the impression that she thought she was right. In any event, she would not reply to me directly - or would she?
Amurca is not where Christians are by any stretch of the imagination persecuted. Rather closer to the opposite: Dean is not Christian enough. Why can't we have an atheist candidate? When will the drooling inbreds stop equating public espousals of some dogma to goodness and morality? Who else is embarassed at the way Europeans look at the sudden drop in qualifications for a civilized country once you get to Amurca, at the "debatability" of Darwin, the credibility given fairy stories, Jeebus appearing in a napkin and UFO sightings?
Religion and sex need to be functionally equated. Whatever gets you "closer to heaven" is your business, but for God's sake in private. Don't go trying to recruit, except to those who've expressed an interest in your style. Sexual and worship habits are not news and have no bearing on anything.
"This is why some Dems feel like they have to stay distant from religion when they campaign. It's not because they don't have strong faith, it's that no matter what they do, it will never be the right way to hold that faith. They end up looking weak and worse, anti-God when they get sucked into that lose/lose argument."
I guess we have come full circle
Hey folks - I know we're all a bunch of anonymous nobodies on the internet, but don't exercise your free speech and call religion on its famous combination of fantastic claims and total lack of proof, because it might upset someone's sensitive feelings and then they'll vote Republican just out of spite.
When some mainstream politician does _anything_ other than genuflect before believers, let me know. Until then, STFU and quit expecting religion to be exempt from criticism. If it's all about faith, it shouldn't matter what others say or think.
I think this pretty much sums up the current dynamic:
"When you elect a President because he talks about “walking with God” more loudly and shamelessly than his rival, then you suffer—because you’ve voted for the more shameless candidate. That’s one reason the Right will always win: because they have no sense of shame. Thus they can invoke Jesus as a personal friend in front of a large audience and assert that God likes our country more than any other. It’s very difficult for anyone with a brain or conscience to do that. And the electorate has made it clear it won’t tolerate anyone who won’t share its delusion enthusiastically." - John Dolan
When some mainstream politician does _anything_ other than genuflect before believers, let me know. Until then, STFU and quit expecting religion to be exempt from criticism. If it's all about faith, it shouldn't matter what others say or think.
Brutus Beefcake | 01.03.04 - 4:57 pm | #
Say on, Brother Bruti. Unfortunately, what Berke Breathed called "offensensetivity" is the common coin these days, especially (and inexplicably) among those in power, who are not likely to lose much.
I guess it goes back to something I heard a few years back, which was in reference to the Michael Ovitz buyout package at Disney -- "How freakin' rich do you have to be?" The same principle applies to some of these people who want the right to do pretty much anything they like, but have great emotional trouble dealing with similar rights extended to other people who might do something different.
It's Stephen King's Danse Macabre all over again -- "Fear Thou The Mutan
It's Stephen King's Danse Macabre all over again -- "Fear Thou The Mutant." How freakin' protected from the rest of the world do your beliefs have to be?
"My point is, I don't care what you think about someone else's beliefs - you still need to refrain from active disparagement. It is, at the very least, the basis of productive discourse in a civil society."
Ah, but only when it comes to religion, you mean? If an idea/belief can't stand up to scrutiny, maybe it doesn't deserve respect, hmm? If it's just a matter of personal belief/opinion, then why would you care who else thinks what of it?
And if the unchurched aren't even allowed to voice their opinions in the Democratic party, where else can they do it? Talk about helping the Greens...
Helga, Mr. Twister, Brutus,filkertom,and Carl Marks are correct. People aligned with a religion are dopes. F-em.
Talking to invisible Sky People. Fricken Idiots.
There is absolutely no proof for what they "believe".
Such losers they are.
I may be throwing the baby out with the bath water but fuck it. They may vote "right" but DAMN they are so deluded. We don't need 'em!
Freaks
I just thought it was because they're not enemies of our Enlightenment constitution who rely on metaphysics to sell the underclass their surfdom since rational debate a) won't get you there and b) wouldn't be appreciated anyways.
Or maybe it's just me.
From Cal Thomas' hate piece:
Dean is from a Congregationalist background, a liberal denomination that does not believe in ministerial authority or church hierarchy.
Well, neither did Jesus Christ. Not that that matters to people like Cal Thomas.
With all due (i.e., minimal) respect to the pious hand-wringers in this thread, I find that the issues in this discussion have become curiously blurred. That is, the question of how religious belief should be handled as an issue in the current presidential campaign keeps turning into the merits of tolerance, or religious belief itself.
While reading the posts, K&Y's comment that "Religion and sex need to be functionally equated." occurred to me from the opposite direction: The topic of religion, when invoked by partisans, is just a Trojan Horse of a different color, whipped out of the barn just to see if it will stampede, entangle, or run over its target. It's a useful backup when there's no apparent footing for the preferred horse, Sex.
Cal Thomas is convinced that Dean is bad for the country because a woman once ate an apple on the advice of a talking snake.
I agree, as the pious contributors have demonstrated, that a candidate is required to "genuflect" to religion in general, since the Teeming Yahoo Masses have traditionally conflated piety with morality and good character, thus responsible and effective leadership. (They enjoy watching "The Wizard of Oz," but they don't really get it.) I wish it were otherwise, as fervently as I wish marijuana would be legalized, but I can't imagine a candidate exhibiting open disinterest or detachment towards religion and remaining popular enough to be elected.
That said, I also believe that it's unwise for a candidate to allow him/herself to be drawn into specific questions or criticisms regarding religious belief. Project an overall attitude of respect and tolerance for religion, affirm that one is Religious and that one's religion is crucial to one's (moral) life, and declare the details to be private. Less is more. Allowing oneself to be dragged on to a slippery slope of a worm-pit of questions like, "How could you marry a Jew? Why did switch churches twenty years ago?" can only trigger a spiral of denigrating distraction. If the UPOTUS could deflect questions about his criminal background and malfeasant military service, surely Dean and the others can draw a line against this foolishness.
I think you just got to be yourself. If you are a really religious person, its okay to show that, if you are not thats okay to.
People get in trouble when they try to come accross as something they are not.
The American populace by and large cares more about people being "real" and not phonies than how religous they are. I really do believe this. They will smell the phoniness a mile away. That's why Bush gets a pass on being ignorant. People know he really is. he's just being himself.
I wonder, perhaps, if any of the righteous right wingers have contemplated the possibility that they will do things in this world for which they will suffer eternally, with full knowledge, and full choice in the matter, yet do them anyhow because the known is worthier than the unknown, and from a mortal perspective, infinity and zero are equal.
Repeat this till they shut up:
Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven. Therefore when thou doest [thine] alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth: That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly. And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites [are]: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
Say, Anonymous | 01.03.04 - 8:22 pm, that's pretty good. Did You make it up?
call a pharisee a pharisee when we see one.
Sure, Atrios, Dems and religion is lose/lose. Just like Clinton and Carter, huh?
Balisardo-exactly. Both weak-ass car salesmen examplifying the fact that politicians who go after the God Vote are wafflers, they really don't have integrity. If it gets Dean/Clark/whoever in, then God bless, but a real man would say "How dare you ask me about my sexual [and/or religious] practices? That's none of your damn business, you unamerican Stasi." Religion and sex need to be equated and both need to be banished from the public sphere, except in cases of exposing hypocrites like self-hating fags.
Matt Grills may be right. Maybe Jesus did want to divide people. Still, the guys who brought us the US Constitution thought it was better to bring people together - and not at gunpoint shouting "My way or the highway, heathen!" Dean should point out that although many repugnicans don't feel respecting others' beliefs is important that he does. I don't care how many percent claim to believe in the divinity of Jesus, most Americans are smart enough to realize that when the govmint starts telling people who, what or how to worship then we're back to the 16th century - in other words we're back to why those pilgrims got on a boat in the first place.
Paul, Paul, Paul...you just don't get it. The only reason it ever comes down to an argument over who's right or wrong is because believers can't keep their beliefs private. They always want to make a public issue out of it and get a free pass from criticism while doing so. Other ideas/beliefs have to fight for respect if they expect to be taken seriously, but we're supposed to just quietly accept religion because it means a lot to millions of people.
Religion should not be an issue in an election anymore than race should. But given the fact that we live in a nation of bigots, some attention needs to be paid to the issue. It seems to me that Republicans have hijacked Christianity by clever issue framing. Comments in the Bible like a rich man has more of a chance of getting throught the eye of the needle than getting into heaven seem pretty left-wing to me. There is a good article about this on Salon called "God is not a Right Wing Zealot"
http://www.salon.com/news/featur...stor/
index.html
Little Brother:
nope, that's more Matthew. Chap. 6, I believe.
Neat, huh?
[ot: I am not anonymous]
Characters Remaining:
Commenting by HaloScan
