Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

March 13, 2006
By: Ogged

Happy To Help

I'm sure we can all set aside the recent acrimony about religion and politics and agree that this proposed logo for the Republican Party is perfect.

Ogged 12:20 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (59)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

I love it. Very, very appropriate for the Republicans.

Posted by: Ron Byers on March 13, 2006 at 12:25 PM | PERMALINK

Ron:

Bill Clinton had no compunction in flaunting his Southern Baptist ties to gain votes either . . .

Posted by: Don P. on March 13, 2006 at 12:29 PM | PERMALINK

"Get off that cross. Somebody needs the wood."

Posted by: Roxanne on March 13, 2006 at 12:31 PM | PERMALINK

I can't wait until someone brings up William J. Bryan's "Cross of Gold" speech now... :-)

Posted by: David W. on March 13, 2006 at 12:33 PM | PERMALINK

It's offensive, stupid, and counter-productive. Shame on you.

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on March 13, 2006 at 12:34 PM | PERMALINK

I think it's inspiring, clever, and spot on.

Posted by: David W. on March 13, 2006 at 12:37 PM | PERMALINK

i'm happy to fill any thread with antipathy towards any public display of any religion. keep it in your goddamn pants, the lot of you. "religious moderates" and "religious liberals" who gives a flying fuck? are you "liberal"? "moderate"? why should i or anyone care about your baseless and unprovable assertions about flying beard boy and the wonder twins or whichever of the 10,000 belief systems out there happens to be "yours"? i care, as 99.9999999999999999 percent of liberal atheists do (and do i ever resent that appelation "atheist"--i'm not the one making crazy assertions about the universe--you all are! if god shows up tomorrow and he's a 3 foot tall monkey who flings poo in the form of commandments, the only people who will be both unsurprised and who won't have some splainin to do are atheists), about what you actually do with your beliefs. their origin is an accident of your own making.

fucking religion.

Posted by: sick of this crap on March 13, 2006 at 12:39 PM | PERMALINK

Don P.

And your point is?

That picture of Uncle Sam hung to a cross is funny and it is insulting to just the right people. It is insulting to Fundamentalist "Christians," and to Neo-Conservative Republicans and, with the caption "Never Forget," to the essential Southern racists who seem to haunt the Republican party. None of whom I really mind thumbing my nose at. It makes the point that at the core of modern Republicanism is an idolatry that replaces Christian (and Jewish) teaching with a secular subtitute. The American flag is the modern American Republican's golden calf. All in all the picture conveys a wonderful message.

Posted by: Ron Byers on March 13, 2006 at 12:42 PM | PERMALINK

Mr. Ogged

If you want to talk about a substantive issue, look at the piece in NYT about how the pentagon screwed up the fall of Baghdad in 2003.

Posted by: nut on March 13, 2006 at 12:43 PM | PERMALINK

It's offensive, stupid, and counter-productive.

Just like the GOP. See? Perfect!

Posted by: apostropher on March 13, 2006 at 12:45 PM | PERMALINK

Dude, did Billmon steal your laptop and make this post?

Not what I usually expect at The Monthly (which isn't to say I disagree . . .)

Posted by: J on March 13, 2006 at 12:46 PM | PERMALINK

Ogged:

To be perfectly honest, your obsession with religion is beginning to wreck this blog. I see a lot less traffic here than when Kevin's around.

It's bad form to post new threads which are only a shade different in content than previous threads. It short-circuits the earlier discussion and makes you look indecisive, besides.

Look, I love religious discussions because I prefer commenting on more philosophical and/or sociological issues than current events. But enough is enough. Trying to pander to harcore seculars with a thoroughly obnoxious and unserious (and hardly humorous) "suggestion" for a GOP logo after post upon post of secular-bashing isn't exactly winning you friends here.

Grow some variety or continue to expect the exodus of regulars waiting for Kevin to come back which is already underway.

Thank you,

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on March 13, 2006 at 12:52 PM | PERMALINK

Don't let the door hit yer ass on the way out Bob rmck1.. This blog needs some new blood.
And the Blood of Uncle Sam might just work..

Posted by: Mr. Bill on March 13, 2006 at 12:54 PM | PERMALINK

Mr. Bill:

"Work" doing what?

Confirming people in what they already believe?

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on March 13, 2006 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINK

What about a new logo for the Democratic Party, developed by Republicans ... I know, Uncle Same crucified on a cross made up of Medicaid-eligibility cards!

Posted by: Peter on March 13, 2006 at 1:05 PM | PERMALINK

Okay, I LOVE it! Uncle Sam as Christ. it is the perfect confusion of 9/11, conservative Christian fervor and patriotism.

Posted by: PTate in MN on March 13, 2006 at 1:35 PM | PERMALINK

Little bit different than the comment threads back at unfogged, eh? Does kevin actually read this dreck? It's probably a lot less work to have a blog if you don't need to read the comments.

Posted by: cw on March 13, 2006 at 1:36 PM | PERMALINK

nope, b/c Lincoln is actuall not conservative enough for those people.

Posted by: e1 on March 13, 2006 at 1:41 PM | PERMALINK

cw:

"PTate in MN" is actually one of the saner ones I recall - if you want pure dreck, look for "cmdicely" and let me know what you think.

Posted by: Don P. on March 13, 2006 at 1:45 PM | PERMALINK

Uncle Sam, Licoln i guess i didn't have my eyes on.
~~~~~~~~

though i will say i agree with those who have said they're tired of all the posting about religious/ politico matters. surely there's some other dead horse to beat?

Posted by: e1 on March 13, 2006 at 1:47 PM | PERMALINK

Ron Byers:

My point was that Democrats like Clinton and Carter had no compunction in wrapping themselves in the flag / religion when it suited them - neither party has "clean hands" when it comes to mixing Church and State.

Posted by: Don P. on March 13, 2006 at 1:48 PM | PERMALINK

Uncle Sam died for your lack of patriotism, so show some respect, you lefty nuts.

Posted by: Frank J. on March 13, 2006 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINK

setting aside religion and politics? with a religious political symbol?

LOLOL - I take it you were being funny.... ROFL - brilliant!

Posted by: cdj on March 13, 2006 at 1:51 PM | PERMALINK

"It's offensive, stupid, and counter-productive. Shame on you."

Nah, liberals are only sensitive when blacks, feminists, gays, jihadists are offended. Making fun of everyone else is perfectly fine.

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on March 13, 2006 at 1:51 PM | PERMALINK
My point was that Democrats like Clinton and Carter had no compunction in wrapping themselves in the flag / religion when it suited them - neither party has "clean hands" when it comes to mixing Church and State.

Wrapping yourself in the "flag/religion" isn't the same thing as "mixing Church and State", and arguments of the form "neither side has clean hands when it comes to..." are usually ridiculous, especially when, as here, no one has raised the claim that one side has completely "clean hands". Its simply a cheap distraction that tries to suggest that because neither side meets some arbitrary standard, the differences between them can't meaningfully be discussed.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 13, 2006 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINK

The good thing about all these pointless posts is that I can come here less often and get more work done.

Posted by: craigie on March 13, 2006 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK

Don P

Politicians trying to play the religion card is as old as politics, but the Republicans have taken it to a whole new level. In fact they have taken it to the level of idolatry. When George Bush says "God is on our side" and wraps himself in the symbols of religion he is engaging in a shocking blasphamy.

People who really believe in the 10 Commandments really want church and state to be separated inorder to avoid just such an occurance.

When Christ said "render unto Ceasar that which is ceasar's and render unto God that which is God's" he was really saying that Ceasar is not a god. He is just a man--a temporal emperor--and as such is entitled to the loyalty due a king. That was a shocking statement for the 1st century, because Ceasar wanted everybody to worship him as a god. There was no distinction between Church and State. The Christian (and Jewish) insistance on a distinction between Church and State would mean trouble for both Christians and Jews for several hundred years until Constantine finally subverted Christianity for politicial purposes. The rest they say is history, but the principal aim of the reformation was to demolish the connection between Church and State. The separation became complete in the American Revolution and in the subsequent post enlightenment revolutions that swept Europe. It seems that Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and George Bush want to blur the separation. They want to return us to the first century Roman model.

Posted by: Ron Byers on March 13, 2006 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINK

I just overheard an ad for this afternoon's NPR, "And (somebody or other) will talk to (somebody or other) about their new book 'An Infinity of Little Hours', about the lives of Carthusian monks."

I don't know anything about this book, but I'm just sure nothing closer to drivel has ever been written.

Posted by: cld on March 13, 2006 at 2:29 PM | PERMALINK

"Trying to pander to harcore seculars ..."

Ya know, I don't mind a little pandering to me and my ilk for a change. Not like ANYONE in politics or government panders to Christians. Oh no...

Posted by: Cal Gal on March 13, 2006 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINK

Cal Gal:

Pandering is pandering.

Call me strange, but I'm just not into having my intelligence insulted.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on March 13, 2006 at 2:53 PM | PERMALINK

How can anyone mock The Passion of the Bush? Judas Republicans and pagan liberals are scourging him and will soon lead him up Calvary.

Posted by: Michael7843853 G-O in 08! on March 13, 2006 at 2:57 PM | PERMALINK

Sic transit....

This blog is quickly slipping into third-tier status. Does Kevin Drum actually control who gets the keys to the blog when he goes away?

Anyone have a suggestion on a new place to go?

Posted by: pk on March 13, 2006 at 3:13 PM | PERMALINK

Ogged - I looked at the picture. I didn't laugh. It's not funny.

Posted by: Paddy Whack on March 13, 2006 at 3:22 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin Drum might be a boring rich guy who plays tennis. But at least he's not weird, like Ogged.

Posted by: MountainDan on March 13, 2006 at 3:23 PM | PERMALINK

you are all a bunch of self-righteous whiny babies.
You all think your are brillant yet the only thing you offer is snark. If you are so insightful why don't you start you own blogs.

Posted by: K. Drum on March 13, 2006 at 3:24 PM | PERMALINK

Ron Byers Where have you been ? More please.
Anyone going after cmdicely expecting easy pickins is really cruisin for a bruisin....deservedly so.

Posted by: opit on March 13, 2006 at 3:24 PM | PERMALINK

Sez the guy who's (clumsily) spoofing our host's handle.

As a certain pale and corpulent freeper drone likes to say: "I love it!"

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on March 13, 2006 at 3:26 PM | PERMALINK

The *content* of this post is snark -- and not even particularly funny snark. On the level of Jehovah butt-banging Uncle Sam over the caption "One Nation Under God" or a Baby Santa Claus in a creche scene.

So what goes around comes around. Or, if you prefer a more topical gloss, "As ye shall sow, so ye shall reap."

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on March 13, 2006 at 3:31 PM | PERMALINK

Ugh.

Posted by: CFShep on March 13, 2006 at 3:36 PM | PERMALINK

This is the best post I've seen here in a long while.

Posted by: fiend on March 13, 2006 at 3:44 PM | PERMALINK

Nah, liberals are only sensitive when blacks, feminists, gays, jihadists are offended. Making fun of everyone else is perfectly fine.

The image had nothing whatever to do with liberalism. It was infantile.

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on March 13, 2006 at 4:08 PM | PERMALINK

Jeffrey:

What's really offensive about Ogged's post is the way it's snarkily trying to reinforce the "liberals are all knee-jerk religion-bashers" meme, which seems to have been the theme of more than a few posts since Friday.

It wasn't an attempt at "balance" or an acknowledgement of how offended many of us got over this idea. It was Ogged's giggly little attempt to throw hamburger into a pirhana tank and enjoy the "predictable" response, for the sake of proving the guest commentators' point.

Ha ha ha. The response from us thoughtful religion-critical lefties has been to merely blanch at his childishness instead.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on March 13, 2006 at 4:18 PM | PERMALINK

arguments of the form "neither side has clean hands when it comes to..." are usually ridiculous, especially when, as here, no one has raised the claim that one side has completely "clean hands". Its simply a cheap distraction that tries to suggest that because neither side meets some arbitrary standard, the differences between them can't meaningfully be discussed.

Indeed. I'm surprised tbrosz hasn't chimed in with another iteration of this same lame argument, as it's one of his favorites when someone calls the Republican Party on something even he can't defend.

Posted by: Gregory on March 13, 2006 at 4:21 PM | PERMALINK

"The image had nothing whatever to do with liberalism. It was infantile."

The images are anti-Americanism pure and simple. And from the many approving responses, it's clear the mask is finally coming off? I can appreciate the honesty. So is this the Washington Monthly's version of the Hamas victory?

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on March 13, 2006 at 4:27 PM | PERMALINK

Yup FF whatever you think it is that is what it is honestly.

Posted by: Neo on March 13, 2006 at 4:30 PM | PERMALINK

Freedom Fighter:

I know you don't bother to read my posts because the words are too big :)

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on March 13, 2006 at 4:33 PM | PERMALINK
When Christ said "render unto Ceasar that which is ceasar's and render unto God that which is God's" he was really saying that Ceasar is not a god.

And, I think, beyond that that God was not so petty that paying taxes to Caesar was going to offend him, and that it took a very shallow kind of faith to think that it would.

Related to this, but perhaps a bit tangentially, I'd argue that a major but too-often ignored thrust of the the Gospel message with regard to the way to approach institutional religion is that its rules should not be taken as a straightjacket, but as illustrations and simplifications which are guides to, rather than complete articulations of, the underlying principles, which any reduction to words will fail to perfectly capture.

Posted by: cmdicely on March 13, 2006 at 4:44 PM | PERMALINK

Shorter cmdicely:

"I can't say exactly what the Gospel message is, I just know it when I see it."

:-)

Posted by: David W. on March 13, 2006 at 4:49 PM | PERMALINK

Bob,

I know you didn't bother reading mine because I wrote "many", not "all".

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on March 13, 2006 at 4:50 PM | PERMALINK

Yikes. So after those cartoons, we feel the need to inflame our opponents against us in a religious war, too?

Posted by: catherineD on March 13, 2006 at 4:50 PM | PERMALINK

"What's really offensive about Ogged's post is the way it's snarkily trying to reinforce the "liberals are all knee-jerk religion-bashers" meme, which seems to have been the theme of more than a few posts since Friday."

Well, is it a meme or does it actually have substance? Judging from comments like: "it is insulting to just the right people." seems to suggest there's much truth to the "meme".

Posted by: Freedom Fighter on March 13, 2006 at 4:52 PM | PERMALINK

Your right freedom Fighter your da man!

Posted by: Neo on March 13, 2006 at 4:58 PM | PERMALINK

Hey Ogged

Remember Jesus, came back from the dead. Are Republicans going to keep coming back even if you are able to destroy them? Interesting....

Posted by: Orwell on March 13, 2006 at 5:11 PM | PERMALINK
Well, is it a meme or does it actually have substance?

The two options aren't even remotely exclusive -- your question is like asking "Is it red or is it an automobile."

A "meme" is a self-replicating unit of behavior, whether the behavior transfers belief at all is irrelevant to whether or not it is a "meme" as is, a fortiori, the truth value of any knowledge so transmitted.

It is a meme. It also has little substance (there are clearly some people on the "Left" -- how many depending on exactly how the term "Left" is constructed -- that are hostile to religion, but it is hardly a valid generalization or uniting value of the Left, at least so far as "the Left" refers to one of two major political forces in US politics.)

Posted by: cmdicely on March 13, 2006 at 5:13 PM | PERMALINK

It's at least as clever as the Danish cartoons of Mohammed. Not as clever as most of the Israeli Anti-Semitic cartoons, but the color and design are good. The fingers making the "V" are reminiscent of Nixon -- a nice touch.

It obviously mocks both Christianity and American Patriotism, so if Democrats circulate it, it might alienate the swing voters from the Democrats. You could try to claim that it only mocks those people who equate Christianity with American Patriotism -- but some of those are Democrats, just as some are Republicans.

Posted by: republicrat on March 13, 2006 at 5:31 PM | PERMALINK

Ogged and Kotsko are my homies. I am proud to be a regular reader of those fine blogs for years and years.

Dude! You did good.

Posted by: bob mcmanus on March 13, 2006 at 5:38 PM | PERMALINK

republicrat wrote "Not as clever as most of the Israeli Anti-Semitic cartoons...."

I'm sorry, I'm much more familiar with anti-Semitic cartoons from Arab countries; is that what you meant?

And puh-lease, by convention, the term "anti-Semitic" means "anti-Jewish" and has nothing to do with other Semitic peoples. It's like, if you painted a grocery store black, you still wouldn't call it a "black market."

Posted by: Joel Rubinstein on March 14, 2006 at 4:12 AM | PERMALINK

I encourage you to widely publish such images in pursuit of your political agenda.

Posted by: Californio on March 14, 2006 at 5:02 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly