 |
 |
 October 30, 2006
DEMOCRATS, LIBERALS, AND RELIGION....Scott Lemieux comments about Democrats and religion:
You know, I have two diametrically opposed responses to this. The first is that I've long had the same question as Scott about the Democratic Party's supposed religious phobia. Who are these Democrats who are insufficiently zealous in their religious outreach? Can anybody name even one? The plain fact is that every single Democrat in Congress claims to be religious, and none of them ever shows the slightest disrespect toward either Christianity or any other faith. Quite the contrary, in fact. But my second response is: Give me a break. We all know perfectly well that it's the ACLU that fights every last expression of religion in the public square as if it really were the end times. (And don't even try to pretend the ACLU is anything but a liberal organization. Save it for the gullible.) It's liberals who gripe about "under God" in the pledge of allegiance. It's liberals who cheered when prayer was outlawed in public schools. It's liberals who fight even a nickel of public funding for parochial schools. It's liberals who write books like Kingdom Coming. It's liberals who disparage the anti-evolution crowd as thickwitted neanderthals. And you know what? I agree with all that. I think the ACLU is great, I don't think government bureaucrats (i.e., teachers) should be pressing religion on little kids, and I have nothing but contempt for the self-righteous blowhards who want to turn high school biology classes into Sunday School. At the same time, I'm not so delusional that I don't realize that a lot of people view these positions as fundamentally anti-religious. I may not agree, but it's not as if this perspective has simply sprung out of thin air. So let's get real: It's true that Democratic politicians are uniformly respectful toward religion, but it's equally true that the Democratic Party responds to liberal concerns, and that means it's more sympathetic than the Republican Party is to a whole raft of positions that even some moderate believers view as anti-religious. Maybe Democrats should do something about this, maybe they shouldn't. We all have our own take on that. But it's not as if the problem is just a figment of Amy Sullivan's imagination. —Kevin Drum 6:26 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (148)Comments
=== We all know perfectly well that it's the ACLU that fights every last expression of religion in the public square as if it really were the end times. (And don't even try to pretend the ACLU is anything but a liberal organization. Save it for the gullible.) It's liberals who gripe about "under God" in the pledge of allegiance. It's liberals who cheered when prayer was outlawed in public schools. ===You seem to have fallen lock, stocks, and gun-barrel-upside-the-head for the Radical meme that these actions are disrespectful to religion. Perhaps you might want to ask the Puritans why so many of them came to North America, eh? Plenty of people of different religions and sects were willing to support the separation of church and state in the writing of the Constitution because they had firsthand experience of what happens otherwise. Something Ms. Sullivan seems not to understand. Or does she really think that when all the "disrepectful" are purged from the Democratic Party that the Radicals will extend here a welcoming hand? In fact she would be one of the first to be handed over to Dobson's New Inquisition. Cranky Posted by: Cranky Observer on October 30, 2006 at 6:31 PM | PERMALINKWe put Kevin. Living in Portland, OR you meet a lot of liberals who are truly anti-religious. Not that there's anything wrong with that! I consider myself one of them. Posted by: Withnail on October 30, 2006 at 6:34 PM | PERMALINKThe only true protection of religion is the guarantee there is not one sanctioned religion and the separation of religion from politics. It's a straw man. Do the politicians reach out to believers. Absolutely? What about the rank and file activists? Maybe not so much. There's a lot of preaching to the choir among my peers....including those who put in hours on campaigns. I call on self-described liberal activists to establish some relationships out there. You will periodically get blown away, like I did when one of my professional associates told me with great fervor that Sodom and Gomorrah really happened. But you will also be periodically non-plussed, like when I told the same person that if she denied evolution then she should, for religious reasons, eschew the use of fossil fuels, and she said, "You mean like when its hypcritical for vegans to wear leather?" Patience and persistance. When the neo-cons and the crooks and liars flame out and we are all holding the bag together, those folks are going to need someone to turn to who won't dis them as a knee-jerk reaction. We need to be ready for that moment. Posted by: Frobisher on October 30, 2006 at 6:38 PM | PERMALINK> The only true protection of religion Which is also truely _respectful_ of religion. Cranky Posted by: Cranky Observer on October 30, 2006 at 6:39 PM | PERMALINKBut sometimes the anti-religious come off as arrogant. And those people are liberals/Democrats more often than not: See here: http://www.alternet.org/blogs/themix/42125 And here: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl01_.html I'm a liberal Democrat myself, for the record Posted by: JJ on October 30, 2006 at 6:39 PM | PERMALINKReligious people and moderate opinion makers are too stoopid to realize that all of the things the ACLU and Leftists do to protect liberty also protects the freedom to believe what the anti-evolution, thickwitted neanderthal crowd wants to believe. What I am not certain Amy Sullivan understands is that compromising with her religious friends to enforce righteous moral authority restricts the liberties of everyone else. Posted by: Hostile on October 30, 2006 at 6:41 PM | PERMALINKI don't think most Amy Sullivan critics would deny that religious conservatives associate the Democratic Party with the ACLU and all kinds of heathenish secular beliefs and practices, and that to some extent this association is not a figment of anyone's imagination (not even Amy's!). What people *are* saying (or what I would say, and what you seem to be saying) is that there's no way Democrats can or should jettison their support for the separation of church and state, or civil rights for all, or the right to privacy, or universal access to abortion and birth control. In fact, many of us think Democrats have gone way too far iin the direction of watering down these links already. So we feel impatient, perhaps too impatient, with arguments like Amy's, which seem weak in analysis and nebulous about just what is it we're supposed to do to win over people who are either dead set against or merely "uncomfortable" with abortion and gay rights. I guess Amy is just trying to help, but her stance reminds me too much of High Broderism. Posted by: mary on October 30, 2006 at 6:41 PM | PERMALINK> But sometimes the anti-religious come Do the religious ever come off as arrogant? How ofen, compared to the non-religious? IOKIYAR I guess. Cranky Posted by: Cranky Observer on October 30, 2006 at 6:41 PM | PERMALINKCranky's got this one right. As a native of the South, I can tell you first hand that simply disagreeing is considered disrespectful, because these positions are often considered an affront to God, and therefore to all Christians. I can't tell you how many times I've had to listen to local politicians, preachers, guys in bars rant about a damn gay pride parade in San Francisco, which, believe it or not, is not locally simulcast. The very existence of it is considered disrespectful, not shoving it down their throats. At the same time, the way they talk about us is beyond disrespectful. They call us traitors, evil, Satanic. There is never a hint that we are all good people who disagree. Posted by: Kiril on October 30, 2006 at 6:41 PM | PERMALINKNice job Kevin substituting the ACLU for elected Democrats. A great deal of the ire aimed at your nominal boss is derived from precisely that rhetorical sleight of hand. If you want to argue that elected Dems need to genuflect less to certain of their interest groups, that's at least an honest discussion. But to claim that because certain people who vote for Democrats do things that a minority of people take offense to, we as a party are ipso facto an anti-religious party is pure hogwash. Instead you and Amy ought to be making the arguments about how elected Dems are in fact treating religious voters with respect, else you're simply enabling a bunch of lies from Republicans and oversimplifications from the press. Posted by: KevStar on October 30, 2006 at 6:42 PM | PERMALINK...and that means it's more sympathetic than the Republican Party is to a whole raft of positions that even some moderate believers view as anti-religious. As a moderate believer, I don't think you'll find many, if any, moderate believers that find these views anti-religious. We don't conflate God and country, and have no problem with making the separation of church and state more firm. I don't know who Amy Sullivan is talking about either, but I'd be surprised if she's advocating prayer in school, teaching creationism or other violations of the constitution. Posted by: Bob on October 30, 2006 at 6:44 PM | PERMALINK. . . that means it's more sympathetic than the Republican Party is to a whole raft of positions that even some moderate believers view as anti-religious. Maybe Democrats should do something about this, maybe they shouldn't. If they do want to do something, a good starting point would be to understand that both of the following are demonstrably false: . . . the ACLU [fights] every last expression of religion in the public square as if it really were the end times. . . . prayer was outlawed in public schools. Neither of those is true, Kevin, not even in the shorthand you're attempting here. Why pose them this way, when you know damn well in plays into the Republicans' hands?
Cranky: Did you even read my post? I don't personally find any of that stuff anti-religious. That's what "I agree with all that" means. Still, the reality is that a lot of religious folks do find these positions anti-religious. That's a reality that needs to be dealt with, not ignored. (My own view is that liberals could stand to calm down over some of more trivial symbolic issues, and could probably stand to adopt a somewhat friendlier rhetoric as well. But that's about it. I'd pretty much oppose any compromise on substantive grounds. In the end, this would probably net the Dems a few percentage points of the vote, but not much more. In some elections, however, that might be the difference between victory and defeat.) Posted by: Kevin Drum on October 30, 2006 at 6:45 PM | PERMALINKIt's liberals who gripe about "under God" in the pledge of allegiance. It's liberals who cheered when prayer was outlawed in public schools. It's liberals who fight even a nickel of public funding for parochial schools. It's liberals who write books like Kingdom Coming. It's liberals who disparage the anti-evolution crowd as thickwitted neanderthals. And it's conservatives who start preemptive wars that get children killed, conservatives who support the death penalty, conservatives who cheer as the poor get poorer and the rich get super-richer. How aren't those anti-Christian? Posted by: Stealth on October 30, 2006 at 6:46 PM | PERMALINK"But sometimes the anti-religious come off as arrogant." Yeah, and constantly reminding me that I'm doomed to a life in hell because I haven't "accepted Jesus Christ into my heart", i.e. become a member of their shitty church, is not arrogant at all. Especially when I live my life according to every single thing that Jesus emphasized as being the most important. Religion would be a lot better if we got rid of all of the churches and just let everyone practice it on a personal, everyday basis. Posted by: OhNotAgain on October 30, 2006 at 6:46 PM | PERMALINKThis is why I post as "the Americanist": in 1899, Leo XIII formally condemned "the Americanist heresy", which was kind of vaguely described. But a sensible reading of the history concludes that the Americanist heresy was the startling idea that civics in itself has a moral value. Arguing about religion in politics is like most things in politics: it is hard to beat something, with nothing. Pro-lifers argue, sensibly, that if abortion is not wrong, then NOTHING is wrong (and note that Lincoln said it first, about slavery). That's something, isn't it? Pro-choice folks like to say that no, it isn't that abortion (for choosing gender?) isn't wrong, per se, it's a question of who chooses, and you can't really expect that ALL parents should be informed about their daughters' choice to abort a baby because SOME parents are abusive, and... Gimme a break. People disagree about stuff. Civics provides a means to disagree without killing each other. THAT has a moral value. It was condemned by the Vatican (notably by Pius IX in the "Syllabus of Errors"), and earlier, by every God-appointed King who had the support of the Reformation and/or the Popes (hard to keep 'em all straight). That's why the heresy was (and remains) AMERICAN in character. And it is also why it is now official (if carefully rationalized) Catholic doctrine. That's the something, with which we can defeat their... nothing. Posted by: theAmericanist on October 30, 2006 at 6:49 PM | PERMALINKMost people are concrete operations thinkers. For them seeing (or hearing) is believing. If the only thing about religion they ever hear from a liberal is attacks on the intelligence of creationists or snarky remarks about the 10 Commandments, then the impression they get is that liberals aren't religous and don't respect religion. it's the ACLU that fights every last expression of religion in the public square as if it really were the end times no they don't. no they don't. no they don't. you shouldn't even repeat that one in jest, or in snarky agreement. because it's just not true. what the ACLU fights is spending public money to promote religion. Posted by: cleek on October 30, 2006 at 6:51 PM | PERMALINKBecause he notes Pat Robertson's fundamental belief in the condemnation of Jews to hell, Amy Sullivan calls Lawrence O'Donnell "the new poster boy for religious intolerance." Money quote from the Stupidest Lady Ever to Write a Book: "The good reverend has also said he believes Methodists will burn in hell, but that's not really the point." Um, yes dear. Yes, indeed it is. Posted by: HeavyJ on October 30, 2006 at 6:52 PM | PERMALINK"Still, the reality is that a lot of religious "folks do find these positions anti-religious. That's a reality that needs to be dealt with, not ignored." I'm sorry Kevin, but this is the same tripe that Amy posts all of the time. Why on earth would I have to (or desire to) accomodate views that are contrary to the freedoms that I cherish as a citizen of this country and are supposedly guaranteed by the Constitution ? These aren't acadmemic issues. There are significant and dangerous risks to allowing these "sneak attacks" on the separation of church and state, and there is definitely a slippery-slope aspect that is very disturbing. And that's how the evangelicals operate. One need look no farther than the abortion clinic situation to see where things end up once they've had a few years to whittle away at things. Posted by: OhNotAgain on October 30, 2006 at 6:52 PM | PERMALINK> Cranky: Did you even read my post? Kevin, By trying to find a "center" you undermine your own statement. Cranky Posted by: Cranky Observer on October 30, 2006 at 6:53 PM | PERMALINKI Answer To The Name Of Atheist You betcha. Religion is teh stupid. No, really. It really is. Its based on believing things despite lack of evidence and there's just nothing to good to say about that kind of stupidity. Posted by: TheFool on October 30, 2006 at 6:54 PM | PERMALINKI don't live in the South. I'm in the Northeast. So I don't hear a lot of Bible thumpers/fundamentalists around all the time. I can see how it might make a difference, living in the south. I might have a different attitude if I did. Still, I think there can be a kind of atheist arrogance sometimes, as Dawkins shows. I don't think that helps our cause. Posted by: JJ on October 30, 2006 at 6:55 PM | PERMALINKThere seems to be some blurring of the true meaning of "reaching out to religious believers" which actually means "reaching out to fundamentalist christians." I'm a buddhist and only one politician ever reached out to believers my religion, Al Gore, and his opponents used it against him, implying that he was antichristian and a puppet of foreign interests. Posted by: charlie don't surf on October 30, 2006 at 6:56 PM | PERMALINKI have the same two diametrically opposed positions. But you should go read what Matt Yglesias has to say on the subject. Posted by: eyelessgame on October 30, 2006 at 6:56 PM | PERMALINKReligion would be a lot better if we got rid of all of the churches and just let everyone practice it on a personal, everyday basis. but, but, but ... who would get the money and the power ? if people worshipped as their own consciences dictated, what on earth would the self-important, attention-seeking, finger-wagging, panty-sniffing, tithe-taking, do-as-i'm-saying, not-as-i'm-doing, media-whoring, rule-writing, women-hiding, PAC-building, mass-mailing, self-appointed consciences-of-the-world do for a living ? won't somebody think of the hypocrites ? Posted by: cleek on October 30, 2006 at 7:01 PM | PERMALINKIt's liberals who disparage the anti-evolution crowd as thickwitted neanderthals. Well, if by liberals you mean "anyone with even an ounce of understanding about basic scientific concepts," then yes. You don't have to be a liberal to consider the anti-evolution crowd to be thickwitted Neanderthals, you just have to have simple common sense. Posted by: Stefan on October 30, 2006 at 7:01 PM | PERMALINK"If the only thing about religion they ever hear from a liberal is attacks on the intelligence of creationists or snarky remarks about the 10 Commandments, then the impression they get is that liberals aren't religous and don't respect religion." I'm sorry, but if a person is offended because I think it idiotic that a person believes that the world is 6000 years old, then that person deserves what they get. For too long we have put up with the bullshit idea in this country that you get to sit around and benefit from all of the great things that science gives us while publicly espousing idiotic drivel like creationism that is completely contrary to all known science and not get called on it. It's like a person on welfare taking the EITC credit each year and sitting around decrying how high the federal income taxes are. As for the 10 commandments - quote one liberal person that has said something snarky about the 10 commandments ? The last time I saw anything about the 10 commandments it was in opposition to having them hanging in a public government building, something which would indicate a preference for one religion over another, which is, last time I checked, contrary to our Constitution. It's like having Oscar Wilde for President! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/core/Content/displayPrintable.jhtml;jsessionid=VFX3R3BRFDCCLQFIQMGSFGGAVCBQWIV0?xml=/news/2006/10/29/wbush29.xml&site=5&page=0 In the aftermath of George W Bush's re-election as president two years ago, his campaign manager, Karl Rove, amused himself and his boss with a battery-powered "Redneck Horn". At the touch of a dashboard button, the device would yell insults in a raucous Southern accent, providing automated road rage for "red state" Republicans. The toy's abusive messages ranged from the relatively mild "Slow down, dumbass!" to "Hey, hogneck, who taught you how to drive?"; "What the hell was that manoeuvre?"; "Are you freaking blind?" and "You're a goddam moron!" How they all laughed in the White House, if the Bush administration's renegade court historian, Bob Woodward, is to be believed.
> As for the 10 commandments - quote one I think he is referring to (1) asking Radical politicians to recite all 10 commandments (2) pointing out how the actions of Radicals violate the 10 Commandments they hold so dear. #2 _really_ pisses them off and is therefore by defintion "disrespectful". Cranky Look, its all about authoritarianism. That is it. Posted by: Cranky Observer on October 30, 2006 at 7:07 PM | PERMALINKThe truest protection for religious interest is to guarantee that all have protection from any religious interest. Posted by: cld on October 30, 2006 at 7:07 PM | PERMALINKJJ: its not that Dawkins or other atheists are arrogant. Its just that we can see how you theists are being duped and its utterly exasperating. You're being conned and we're trying to tell you exactly what the con is but you act like total stooges and insist on going through with it. Its just hard for us to accept how completely brainwashed so many of you are. And therein lies the proof that we are not arrogant. If we were arrogant we would not assume that you theists were just as capable of seeing through the fraud as we are. Posted by: The Fool on October 30, 2006 at 7:08 PM | PERMALINKmhr, shush. the grown-ups are talking now. Posted by: cleek on October 30, 2006 at 7:09 PM | PERMALINKBut Amy doesn't call for the Democrats to change positions. She just for nice talk, which as you admit all Democrats do. She's the one who thinks evangelicals are stupid, willing to trade their deeply held positions for a few nice words. Why does Amy Sullivan hate the religious? Posted by: Rob on October 30, 2006 at 7:10 PM | PERMALINK(My own view is that liberals could stand to calm down over some of more trivial symbolic issues, and could probably stand to adopt a somewhat friendlier rhetoric as well. But that's about it. I'd pretty much oppose any compromise on substantive grounds. In the end, this would probably net the Dems a few percentage points of the vote, but not much more. In some elections, however, that might be the difference between victory and defeat.) I'll let Scott Lemieux of TAPPED answer that: But my biggest problem with Sullivan's argument continues to be that she's frustratingly vague about how, exactly, Democrats should "reach out to disaffected evangelicals." My understanding is that she's not saying that Democrats should sacrifice core principles such as reproductive freedom. But if that's the case, I don't know what more Democrats can do. Sullivan seems to think that there are large numbers of voters who 1)like Democratic economic policy more, 2)vote Republican because of social issues, but 3)would stop voting Republican on social issues, not because of substantive shifts in Democratic policy but because of shifts in rhetoric. I suspect that these voters could fit in a good-sized walk-in closet. I think most voters who vote on cultural principle care about substantive positions, and with the Roberts and Alito homeruns they're being rational to vote Republican no matter how much Karl Rove disdains them. http://www.prospect.org/weblog/ Posted by: Stefan on October 30, 2006 at 7:10 PM | PERMALINKIt's liberals who cheered when prayer was outlawed in public schools. Really? When was this, because I must have missed it. Of course, we all know that mandatory state-sanctioned prayer, and not prayer itself, was banned in public schools, but that can't be what Drum is referring to, otherwise he wouldn't have misstated it so badly, would he....? Posted by: Stefan on October 30, 2006 at 7:13 PM | PERMALINKYou betcha. Religion is teh stupid. No, really. It really is. Its based on believing things despite lack of evidence and there's just nothing to good to say about that kind of stupidity. How DARE you mock my faith in the Tooth Fairy! How DARE you, you smug self-centered liberal elitist! Just for that, I'm voting Republican..... Posted by: Stefan on October 30, 2006 at 7:14 PM | PERMALINKBoth Amy and Kevin seem to be using "religion" to mean "right-wing fundamentalism." The two terms are not synonyms. The religious fights we liberals have are with right-wing fundamentalists who want to establish a theocracy, not with anyone else. I live in central Ohio, which is hardly irreligious, and in fact many of the suburbanites I know are church-going Christians. Yet I don't know a single one who would argue for forced prayer in schools or the teaching of creationism -- our suburb officially refers to Christmas as Holly Days, and nobody is complaining. I suspect that most normal people in this country understand that our society is pluralistic. What seems to have happened, however, is that right-wing fundamentalist nutcases have convinced many in the media (including Amy, and, surprisingly, Kevin) that the right-wing fundamentalist agenda is the de facto "religious" agenda. It is not. Religious identity in this country is as diverse and everything else. Posted by: Aris on October 30, 2006 at 7:16 PM | PERMALINKEvery suppossedly "progressive" movement since the Fench Revolution has sabotaged it's efforts with an unneccessary attack on religious faith. What Kevin misses, and Amy realizes, is that expunging all reference to our religious heritage is not neutrality. What concievable purpose could be served by the ACLU's jihad against an infintesimal cross on the LA county seal? Why require the govt to spend millions of dollars erasing the fact that LA was founded as a Catholic mission to the Indians? Kevin says he's fine with that -- why? Can't you think of more productive uses of your time and money? Posted by: minion of rove on October 30, 2006 at 7:17 PM | PERMALINKWe all know perfectly well that it's the ACLU that fights every last expression of religion in the public square as if it really were the end times. As others have pointed out, the ACLU opposes taxpayer financed and/or state-sanctioned expressions of religion in the public square -- indeed, they will and have fought for the rights of private, non-governmental churches and religious groups to practice their religion in the public square. I don't understand why this seems to be such a hard concept for the Christianists to grasp -- do what you want, but don't expect the rest of us taxpayers to pay for it. Posted by: Stefan on October 30, 2006 at 7:25 PM | PERMALINKOhnotagain, read my entire post before you get all defensive. My point was that it is important not to let religion be dined by the right and not to let religion work in the political arean only for the right. The right is very good at manipulation symbols ( and very weak in understanding substance). My point was also that liberals have moral values but, by failing to articulte those values, we get labaled by the right as not having values, particularly when the only time liberals discuss religion is to make fun of right wing extremist religion. Who are these Democrats who are insufficiently zealous in their religious outreach? Can anybody name even one? I dunno, its pretty hard to separate "insufficiently zealous" from "insufficiently competent". Certainly most prominent Democrats I've seen fall into one category, though which is pretty hard to say which one; John Kerry's fumbling over any discussion of religion would be the first example that jumps to mind. Posted by: cmdicely on October 30, 2006 at 7:37 PM | PERMALINKKevin, you're talking about apples and oranges here, buddy, and please don't pretend that you don't know it. (Save it for the gullible!) Amy is talking about Democratic politicians but you're talking about the ACLU, individual Supreme Courts -state/federal, not necessarly liberal since judges are suppose to go by US Constitutional law and thoughout it all, fail to address the main point. Amy is talking about politicians and YOU'RE NOT. Tell me Kevin, what Democratic politician has ever piped up and said "we don't need "under God" in the pledge of allegiance? NOT one Mr. KD, not one. NO Dem congress member has EVER done that Kevin. You pulled a little Bushie trick there Mr. Drum: You changed the subject, but not as stupid as Bush followers. er, I met to say poster here are not as stupid as Bush followers. Posted by: Cheryl on October 30, 2006 at 7:45 PM | PERMALINKNO Dem congress member has EVER done that Kevin. Well, there was Rep. Bill Z. Bubb (D-NH), but something never felt quite right about that guy. Posted by: Stefan on October 30, 2006 at 7:46 PM | PERMALINKdarn it, here: I met to say "we (posters) are not as stupid as Bush followers." Posted by: Cheryl on October 30, 2006 at 7:47 PM | PERMALINKIts truly breathtaking…. Pennsylvania needs to put up a pro-lifer to beat Santorum, (and the feminists muzzle themselves) Ford is running around Tennessee saying Jesus every third word, Hillary now wears a cross…
Its just that we can see how you theists are being duped and its utterly exasperating. I'm not a theist. I'm an agnostic. But I've known plenty of theists I respect. And I have enough curiousity not to flatly dismiss religion, and especially not to dismiss people who are religious. These people have included family members and friends that I've had a lot of respect for. (Of course thugs like Jerry Falwell are a different sort entirely.) Posted by: JJ on October 30, 2006 at 7:52 PM | PERMALINKWhy is it always the ten commandments that fundamentalists and some evangelicals want posted? Why not post the Beatitudes -- you know, things like "Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God." More on my theory the interweb is such a complex device it intersects with parallel universes: today, just as I deleted it, I noticed a piece of spam was dated December 31, 2037. Posted by: cld on October 30, 2006 at 7:53 PM | PERMALINKJust read this thread - it makes the point for Amy. The vast majority of comments are showing literally *no* respect for the belief (in God) of the majority of their fellow citizens, then acting surprised that those fellow citizens return the lack of regard. Lily has it right - Dem 'thinkers' (not the same as Dem politicians) let themselves get hung up on the stupdity/superstition of religious beliefs and hand the faithful over to be exploited by the right-wing. Um - cartoons of Mohammad? Sure - I won't flatly dismiss all religion. But I will flatly dismiss all discussion of mixing religion and politics. Get all indignant about "being offended" on your own time. Besides, the "saved" have all eternity to stew over it. Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on October 30, 2006 at 8:04 PM | PERMALINKBut my second response is: Give me a break. We all know perfectly well that it's the ACLU that fights every last expression of religion in the public square as if it really were the end times. No, actually, it doesn't; it fights every last expression of religion backed by the government as if it were a violation of the Establishment Clause, which is quite different from your description. (And don't even try to pretend the ACLU is anything but a liberal organization. Save it for the gullible.) True, supporting Constitutional liberties is certainly a position that distinguishes liberals from conservatives. It's liberals who gripe about "under God" in the pledge of allegiance. A very small minority of liberals complain about that, and even most of those who complain don't get very worked up about it. It's liberals who cheered when prayer was outlawed in public schools. Prayer, qua prayer, was never outlawed in public schools. Prayer led by government agents in the public schools was; one of the cases which was brought which led to that was brought by religious persons who didn't like having a different religion forced on their children through such prayer. It's liberals who fight even a nickel of public funding for parochial schools. Some liberals do, some don't; some of those that do do it because the schools are private, not because they are religious. It's liberals who write books like Kingdom Coming. And often conservatives who write books about the dangerous influence of non-Christian politico-religious movements (particularly Islamic ones, but also liberal Christian ones.) Neither is any more disrespectful to "religion". It's liberals who disparage the anti-evolution crowd as thickwitted neanderthals. Er, "thickheaded" or "dimwitted", more often, and no more than flat-earthers. So? At the same time, I'm not so delusional that I don't realize that a lot of people view these positions as fundamentally anti-religious. I may not agree, but it's not as if this perspective has simply sprung out of thin air. No, its been deliberately cultivated by right-wing politicians looking for a way to build a base of support by making Christians, particularly of the fundamentalist stripe, feel persecuted. It didn't spring out of thin air, its the product of deliberate distortion and propaganda. So let's get real: It's true that Democratic politicians are uniformly respectful toward religion, Er, no, its not. Some are respectful toward religion generally, some are respectful toward certain religions and not others, some make a perfunctory and not always successful effort to mask contempt for religion and the religious. No different than Republicans in this respect. but it's equally true that the Democratic Party responds to liberal concerns, and that means it's more sympathetic than the Republican Party is to a whole raft of positions that even some moderate believers view as anti-religious. Sure, which is precisely what Democrats need to understand and, if they want to be seen as being "respectful" to religion (and even moreso if they actually want to be respectful toward religion), they need to (1) work to understand why these are seen as "anti-religious", (2) where there are legitimate complaints that can be addressed with violating liberal principles, subtly shift position to do so, and (3) work to explain how their positions are respectful of religion. If you don't fight the meme the Republicans are trying to spread to keep the Christian vote, you hand them an advantage they don't deserve. Maybe Democrats should do something about this, maybe they shouldn't. We all have our own take on that. But it's not as if the problem is just a figment of Amy Sullivan's imagination. Well, no. As frequently as I disagree with Amy's position on what to do, or even what the fundamental problem areas are, this isn't a problem that she invented out of nowhere; the perception certainly exists, valid or not. Posted by: cmdicely on October 30, 2006 at 8:05 PM | PERMALINK"Why is it always the ten commandments that fundamentalists and some evangelicals want posted?" I get your point about the Beatitudes I don't understand why this seems to be such a hard concept for the Christianists to grasp -- do what you want, but don't expect the rest of us taxpayers to pay for it. It's not a difficult concept to grasp - but purposely failing to grasp it serves their twisted, dishonest agenda better. Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on October 30, 2006 at 8:08 PM | PERMALINKOh, and this: (And don't even try to pretend the ACLU is anything but a liberal organization. Save it for the gullible.) The ACLU protects individual rights, and just because FOX news demonized the ACLU doesn't prove that ACLU is exclusively liberal. I really think those lawyers that work for the ACLU would just as aggressively defend individual rights to bare arms as long as an individual has no criminal or mental illness history. Kevin, you've been bainwash by Bill O'Reilly and by listening to Bushie talking points until you actually believe them. You sound like Bush accusing the New Jersey Supreme Court of being a bunch of "activist judges". But of course those same "judges" would ONLY have been "activist judges" if they defer to King George and those right-wing evangelicals instead of Constitutional law. I think everyone here knows that Bush accuses judges of being "activist judges" whenever they don't do what Bush administration wants them too. Kevin's right. Some, not all, (not even most) Democrats are pretty anti-religious. Just mentioning the name Amy Sullivan around here is like waving a red flag in front of a bull. KGB Posted by: kgb on October 30, 2006 at 8:11 PM | PERMALINKKevin, the preserving of separation of church and state is the best thing ever to happen to religion. Just check out countries like UK that have a state religion and see what the participation levels are-- quite low. So the ACLU can be seen as a defender of religion in the sense that what they do is GOOD for religion in this country in that it keeps the practice of religion completely voluntary and doesn't single out any denomination for either support or rejection. What the Christianists (to distinguish them from Christians) want, of course, has nothing to do with freedom of religion. What they want is support for their particular brand of a certain denomination. And I am very glad, and any non-Christianist religious person ought to agree, that Ms. Sullivan doesn't get what she always seems to want, some bended-knee fealty on the part of both parties to the loudest adherents of Christianism. That's bad for America, and bad for religion in general, and the fact that it might be good for one particular brand indicates that it is simply anti-American. The Democrats stand for freedom of religion for more than just those who practice one form of it. If you don't get that, please step over there and comfort Ms. Sullivan in her constant feelings of persecution, which are getting really old to the rest of us. If she really really cared about freedom of religion, we'd be hearing her proclaim the need for atheism to be accepted, because that's the "religious group" that is discriminated against. Posted by: oops on October 30, 2006 at 8:12 PM | PERMALINKBut…I think it’s their (the ten commandments) relationship with the law, and lawmaking that make them particularly suitable for legislative grounds & courthouses. The Ten Commandments have very little connection with the civil law, and even less with the concept of lawmaking applicable in any system of popular sovereignty. I mean, deliberation by elected representatives of the people delegated authority by the electorate is about as far from "Big Man in the Sky delivers binding written edicts" as you can get. Were we to take material from the Bible that is remotely relevant to the civil law, "Render unto God what is God's, and unto Caesar what is Caesar's" would be more appropriate than the decalogue. Posted by: cmdicely on October 30, 2006 at 8:13 PM | PERMALINKIn constitutional interpretation its particularly important to note were a particular right is guaranteed within the text. Freedom of Religion is the first right mentioned in the first amendment of our constitution. Posted by: Fitz on October 30, 2006 at 8:14 PM | PERMALINKWell, if by liberals you mean "anyone with even an ounce of understanding about basic scientific concepts," then yes. In the modern American political lexicon, the latter is a proper subset of the former. Posted by: cmdicely on October 30, 2006 at 8:16 PM | PERMALINK"The Ten Commandments have very little connection with the civil law, and even less with the concept of lawmaking applicable in any system of popular sovereignty. I mean, deliberation by elected representatives of the people delegated authority by the electorate is about as far from "Big Man in the Sky delivers binding written edicts" as you can get." Apparently lawyers and legal professionals disagree. They are a common expression (along with the Hammurabi code and other historical ancient texts) of the history of legal thought.
Freedom of Religion is the first right mentioned in the first amendment of our constitution. Actually, I'd say Freedom of Religion (the Free Exercise Clause) is the second right in the First Amendment. Freedom from religion (the Establishment Clause) is first. Posted by: cmdicely on October 30, 2006 at 8:21 PM | PERMALINKApparently lawyers and legal professionals disagree. Yes, people in the practice of law like to associate the practice of law with the interface between the human and the divine. That doesn't mean they should be indulged. Posted by: cmdicely on October 30, 2006 at 8:26 PM | PERMALINKChrist! I wish religious people like Amy would just practice their religion and shut the fuck up about it. I support your right to have an imaginary playmate. Just don't make me pretend talk to him. Posted by: Pat on October 30, 2006 at 8:27 PM | PERMALINKBy the way, I really missed this pattern, which used to happen reguarly when Amy posted here. 1.) Amy Sullivan posts that Democrats are hostile to religion. 2.) People here say in response that she is ridiculous and that it is fundamentalists who are trying to impose their views on others. 3.) Ten Republican trolls come in and say "See? Democrats ARE hostile to religion!" 4) Go to 1 and start again. Go the fuck away!! Posted by: Pat on October 30, 2006 at 8:31 PM | PERMALINKJJ: I've known many theists, including family members, including formerly myself, whom I respected. However, I respect them despite their foolish religious beliefs, not because of them, so this point has no bearing on the discussion. Technically, I'm an agnostic too. But only in the same sense that I'm an agnostic about the existence of Thor, the God of Thunder. Only because logically its impossible to 100% prove a negative existential claim. 99.9999999999999999% is good enough for me, so effectively I'm an atheist. Posted by: The Fool on October 30, 2006 at 8:36 PM | PERMALINKJJ: I've known many theists, including family members, including formerly myself, whom I respected. However, I respect them despite their foolish religious beliefs, not because of them, so this point has no bearing on the discussion. Technically, I'm an agnostic too. But only in the same sense that I'm an agnostic about the existence of Thor, the God of Thunder. Only because logically its impossible to 100% prove a negative existential claim. 99.9999999999999999% is good enough for me, so effectively I'm an atheist. Posted by: The Fool on October 30, 2006 at 8:38 PM | PERMALINK"Actually, I'd say Freedom of Religion (the Free Exercise Clause) is the second right in the First Amendment. Freedom from religion (the Establishment Clause) is first." Then you’d be engaging in novel legal reasoning. There are not two clauses here, it is a single clause respecting government interference in matters religious. Nowhere does it say either, A) Freedom from religion Nor B) Separation of Church & State. As I noted in constitutional interpretation it’s particularly important to note were a particular right is guaranteed within the text. One advantage of this is the context given the groupings of rights. Note; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Like the press, and free speech and assembly, the drafters saw religion as a natural check on the powers of the state. If the State can establish a religion, it could then control its message and thereby void this bulwark against tyranny. “Yes, people in the practice of law like to associate the practice of law with the interface between the human and the divine.” Actually it seems more of a statement about historical linage, and legitimacy. Well, if by liberals you mean "anyone with even an ounce of understanding about basic scientific concepts," then yes. In the modern American political lexicon, the latter is a proper subset of the former. [Wiping the coffee off my screen] Phew, that's a good one! You should take your bizarre comedy routines out on the road. Posted by: TangoMan on October 30, 2006 at 8:43 PM | PERMALINKThat’s what they are represented in the Supreme Court multiple times & there are multiple freezes in my law school depicting mosses and other historic law givers. Pericles, perhaps? Our form of government owes more to ancient Greece than any ancient Church. In fact, if you look closely you'll notice that laws are made by men. If you look really closely you'll notice that religion is made by men also. Posted by: obscure on October 30, 2006 at 8:44 PM | PERMALINKBut only in the same sense that I'm an agnostic about the existence of Thor, the God of Thunder. By Odin! The Fool taunts me! Puny mortal, prepare to feel my wrath.... Posted by: Thor on October 30, 2006 at 8:49 PM | PERMALINKThen you’d be engaging in novel legal reasoning. There are not two clauses here, it is a single clause respecting government interference in matters religious. Recognizing the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause as having each their own import is not exactly "novel legal reasoning", by any reasonable definition, even if you disagree with it. Nowhere does it say either, A) Freedom from religion Nor B) Separation of Church & State. Nowhere does it say "freedom of religion", either; "freedom of religion" is a fair restatement of the impact of the free exercise clause, "freedom from religion" a similarly fair restatement of that of the establishment clause, and "separation of Church and State" a slightly different, but equally fair, view of the two together. Actually it seems more of a statement about historical linage, and legitimacy. A false statement, perhaps. As the historical lineage of the modern legal profession has little connection to the Mosaic tradition, and its philosophical claim to legitimacy rests in the justification of the law by appeal to consent of the governed, not divine dictate, it doesn't work well on that level. It seems to me more of a self-important mythical connection, an attempt to piggy-back on popular imagery similar to the thin historical connection invoked with the creation of the so-called "Holy Roman Empire". "Pericles, perhaps? Yes Pericles is another.... I like the Greek layout of Washington. With Jefferson and Lincoln memorials representing Ancient Pagan Temples, & the Eygigtian Obilisk (a religious symbol) in the center. It comes down to this: I went from grade school through high school listening to people tell me I killed Christ and asking me why I didn't celebrate Christmas when Shellie's family did? Amy Sullivan's tactics would burn and crucify Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and atheists at the stake. I say fuck that. I say your right to believe in God ends at my nose and my wallet. Keep your fucking religious beliefs out of politics. You use it to pretend you are a victim, and you use it as a trump card to oppress others. I thank my god for the separation of church and state, and if Amy doesn't understand that, I will be happy to take her to city hall and shove a bible, a koran, a torah, and a cross repeatedly up her asshole until she does. Amy you're just another fucking goy as far as I am concerned. Fuck off. Posted by: jerry on October 30, 2006 at 8:59 PM | PERMALINKBTW, the ACLU in my town has long been directed by a Republican who has run for office as a Republican. She isn't at all liberal-- rather she believes protecting the Constitution is something all Americans should support. I think Kevin is doing a disservice to her and other "conservative" ACLUers to imply that only liberals are pro-liberty. Posted by: oops on October 30, 2006 at 9:06 PM | PERMALINKI say your right to believe in God ends at my nose and my wallet. Keep your fucking religious beliefs out of politics. Yet it's the liberal multicultural advocates who shove religion down the throats of our children, and are proud to do so so long as the religion isn't Christianity: During the course at the middle school, teacher Brooke Carlin, using an instructional guide, told her students that they would adopt roles as Muslims for three weeks. She said she stressed that the exercise was only a role- playing game to teach them what Muslims believe.Posted by: TangoMan on October 30, 2006 at 9:07 PM | PERMALINK Technically, I'm an agnostic too. But only in the same sense that I'm an agnostic about the existence of Thor, the God of Thunder. I don't know any adherents of Thor, the God of Thunder. But I did know my great grandmother, and a friend of mine who was a Methodist minister, and I liked them. The same with MLK and Thomas Merton. Those were good guys too. Thor was the guy drawn by Stan Lee, which was a bit different. Posted by: JJ on October 30, 2006 at 9:14 PM | PERMALINKHow is it that the add-on "under God" is religious. Certainly, its sponsor, the Knights of Columbus is a Catholic organization. But the inclusion in the Pledge was jingoism in 1954, and remains so today. I am old enough to remember the first time reciting the Pledge at a secular vs Catholic function. Those trained in the "under God" mode got left a couple of words behind. So, if you want to berate the ACLU for its opposition to "under God" in the Pledge, realize as well, it isn't about religion, its about a right wing political agenda. Posted by: RickG on October 30, 2006 at 9:14 PM | PERMALINKAll good points, Kevin (oh God, I'm even starting to write like him), but these arguments would be moot if all people kept their religion and governance separate. In my experience, the people I have met who are very liberal are also deeply spiritual. I'm sure the knuckle-draggers will say, "Yeah, well what about abortion?". To that question, my answer is that I have never met a liberal who "advocates" abortion. We uniformly believe it is the worst possible outcome of a pregnancy and it is far, far better to prevent unwanted pregnancies than to terminate them. However, we also recognize that there are circumstances when terminating a pregnancy is more compassionate than allowing it to go to term. And it is the mother's right to make that judgment - and no one else. Until liberals find a uniform, sensible voice regarding this issue, they are going to get bludgeoned by the pseudo-religious. Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on October 30, 2006 at 9:21 PM | PERMALINKI don't know any adherents of Thor, the God of Thunder They're out there. http://www.thetroth.org/ourfaith/intro.html Posted by: felt tip Larry on October 30, 2006 at 9:25 PM | PERMALINK"if you want to berate the ACLU for its opposition to "under God" in the Pledge, realize as well, it isn't about religion, its about a right wing political agenda." The phrase was inserted through a Congressional resolution in 1954, sponsored by that crazed right winger, Peter Rodino. Lord, you guys are hothouse flowers. Posted by: theAmericanist on October 30, 2006 at 9:28 PM | PERMALINKIt's hard to reconcile Amy Sullivan's piece with the latest from Garry Wills in the New York Review of Books ("A Country Ruled by Faith"). http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19590 Posted by: Ross Best on October 30, 2006 at 10:03 PM | PERMALINKI was privileged to know an absolute kook of a Dane who loudly proclaimed himself an atheist. At a time when I was way too involved in church, banter would be good natured if belief came up for discussion : which wasn't likely, truth to tell. He was eccentric, smart as a whip, good natured and kind. I support your right to have an imaginary playmate. However, I respect them despite their foolish religious beliefs, not because of them, so this point has no bearing on the discussion. Don't you guys get it? Can't you just say "it's not for me" without being a snarky asshole about it? There are plenty of religious people who aren't stupid. They recognize disrespect when they see it, whether it's insults like these or the condescension I suspect you two would be more likely to display in public, where insulting people is considered, well, bad manners. How is going around trying to "enlighten" people by telling them how they've been brainwashed denuding them of their religious beliefs any different from Jerry Falwell telling you you're going to hell for your lack thereof? Sure, I wish conservative Christians would shut the hell up about their religion. But I know some atheists I wish would shut the hell up about other peoples' religions. Posted by: An atheist who doesn't get it on October 30, 2006 at 10:11 PM | PERMALINKSure, I wish conservative Christians would shut the hell up about their religion. But I know some atheists I wish would shut the hell up about other peoples' religions. add up the theists who won't shut up, then add up the atheists who won't shut up. which number is orders of magnitudes larger? Posted by: cleek on October 30, 2006 at 10:18 PM | PERMALINKI'm a Christian and I have no problem with anything the ACLU does. The defend the fringes. It needs doing. I don't think there should be prayer in public schools. That's what churches are for. I don't believe tax payers should fund religious schools. That's what religious tithes are for. I don't believe the words "under God" should be in the Pledge of Allegiance because they were only put in it to show that we were different than the Godless Commies. Take 'em out. "Can't you just say "it's not for me" without being a snarky asshole about it? " When you get Christians to stop being the same way. My favorite snarky Christian asshole line:"It's all gonna burn!" Posted by: Joey Giraud on October 30, 2006 at 10:28 PM | PERMALINKTangoMan, Nice try, but it is not going to work. You are intentionally misleading people to think that only Islam is taught in California public schools, while Christianity is neglected. Yes, in California, students are required to study Islamic history in Seventh Grade (they also study Japan, China, and Mideval Christianity). However, you are conveniently leaving out certain facts. Most notably, in the sixth grade, California students are required to study about ancient Hebrew and Christian texts and their importance and contributions to our society. The following passage is taken from pages 77-78 of the History-Social Science Framework for California Public Schools: The Foundation of Western Ideas: The Ancient Hebrews and Greeks "One of the principal roots of Western civilization can be found in the enduring contributions of the ancient Hebrews to Western ethical and religious thought and literature, most notably the Old Testament. To understand these traditions, students should read and discuss Biblical literature that is part of the literary heritage and ethical teachings of Western civilization; for example, stories about the Creation, Noah, the Tower of Babel, Abraham, the Exodus, the Tem Commandments, Ruth and Naomi, David, and Daniel and the Lion's Den; selections from the Psalms and Proverbs; and the Hebrew people's concepts of wisdom, righteousness, law, and justice." The following passage is taken from page 80 of the History-Social Science Framework for California Public Schools: "Students should learn about the rise and spread of Christianity throughout the Mediterranean world and of its origins in the life and teachings of Jesus; Roman efforts to suppress Christianity; the consequences of Constantine's acceptance of Christianity (A.D. 313); and its subsequent establishment by Theodosius I as the official religion of the empire. Through selections from Biblical literature, such as the Sermon on the Mount and the parables of the Good Samaratin, the lost sheep, and the Prodigal Son, the students will learn about the teachings of Jesus that advocate compassion, justice, and love for others." Also, in seventh grade, in the same program that you decry, students are required to: "Trace the origins of Islam and the life and teachings of Muhammad, including Islamic teachings on the connection with Judaism and Christianity. (page 94 of the History-Social Science Framework for California Public Schools)" Posted by: adlsad on October 30, 2006 at 10:50 PM | PERMALINK"My point was also that liberals have moral values but, by failing to articulte those values, we get labaled by the right as not having values, particularly when the only time liberals discuss religion is to make fun of right wing extremist religion." I'm sorry, but this just won't fly. Liberals have always publicly stated that they are for social justice, economic justice, and many other things that fit right in with the teachings of Jesus. That never stopped the right-wing Christian zealots from telling us that we want to give all of their money to welfare queens and tax them to high heaven. You see, what you can't seem to straight in your head is that, to these people, their religion is a means to an end and nothing more. They don't really believe any of it in any true sense. They only believe in it as long as it is paying off in some way for them, which is why you see the ever-increasing practice of publicly attaching faith in God with beneficial outcomes, especially financial. Oh, and for all of those that say that liberals are hard on Christianity specifically - not this liberal. To me, Muslims are just a more extreme version of the same thing. Posted by: OhNotAgain on October 30, 2006 at 10:51 PM | PERMALINKI AM *THOR* ! I am *tho*, *tho*, thore. Posted by: Thweetie on October 30, 2006 at 10:53 PM | PERMALINKAlso, just for the record - I do believe in God, but not the "old man in the sky" version that talks to us or actively intercedes in nature. I also don't believe that Jesus was the "son of God". However, I do believe that he was one of the greatest persons to ever walk this planet in the last few thousand years. We'd all be a lot better off if we spent a lot more time adhering to his teachings. Of course, the above beliefs would be unacceptable in most mainstream Christian religions in this country, and that tells you all you need to know about religion in the current United States. Posted by: OhNotAgain on October 30, 2006 at 10:56 PM | PERMALINKI think that, as a rule, liberals are not anti-religion so much as they are anti-fanatic. The right wing, on the other hand, tends to have lots of fanatics. This is true in other countries as well. Posted by: opinion on October 30, 2006 at 11:22 PM | PERMALINKBy the way, the ACLU fights for the rights of the religious as well when they've been unconstitutionally infringed upon. Posted by: opinion on October 30, 2006 at 11:25 PM | PERMALINKIt's true though that the left has more anti-religious people. These are people who have seen all the havoc that religion often causes societies, the pain it has caused the peoples of the world in so many ways and they want to educate people to the fact that needn't fear religion. As a rule religion uses fear and guilt to get people to do what they want. Posted by: opinion on October 30, 2006 at 11:30 PM | PERMALINKI think that, as a rule, liberals are not anti-religion so much as they are anti-fanatic. The right wing, on the other hand, tends to have lots of fanatics. This is true in other countries as well. Would you like me to push a few liberal buttons so that the liberal fanatics come rushing out from under cover? Posted by: TangoMan on October 30, 2006 at 11:35 PM | PERMALINKI actually agree with Amy Sullivan that there is a problem with some kinds of believers seeing Democrats as hostile to their concerns and Republicans as sympathetic to them. It's just that her proposed capitulation and coddling wouldn't actually do any good. As many people have noted in many contexts, if you offer the public a real Republican and a fake one, they'll tend to go for the real one. What we need is Democrats (and non-Democratic liberals) to engage the turf the Republicans have claimed. Take this saying of Jesus': But what do you think? A man had two sons, and he came to the first, and said, ‘Son, go work today in my vineyard.’ He answered, ‘I will not,’ but afterward he changed his mind, and went. He came to the second, and said the same thing. He answered, ‘I go, sir,’ but he didn’t go. Which of the two did the will of his father?" They said to him, "The first." Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly I tell you that the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering into the Kingdom of God before you." (Matthew 21:28-31) You could take that and build a fine sermon on the sinfulness of lying about what you're going to be funding, particularly in matters of aid to the needy. Or consider: "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." (Matthew 7:21) That would make a good starting point for comparing the information about how people actually live in red states and blue states - divorce, child abuse, children of wedlock, domestic violence, alcoholism and drug abuse, and all the rest. And one could bring in some of the really blatant hypocrisies in the personal lives of so many theocratic leaders, not for the sake of scandals but to make the point that The Bible, read conservatively, already condemns these things. I'm not talking about doing it in a light-hearted or smartass way, either. It would come best from people who themselves do read the Bible much as the theocrats' followers do. It would be hard work, and there wouldn't be much glory in it. But I think it's the right way to reclaim the idea of civic virtue as in accord with Christian morality - since I do believe that most of the time these aren't in any serious conflict at all. this: Religious people and moderate opinion makers are too stoopid... and this: become a member of their shitty church... and this: You betcha. Religion is teh stupid. No, really. It really is. Its based on believing things despite lack of evidence and there's just nothing to good to say about that kind of stupidity. and this: I wish religious people like Amy would just practice their religion and shut the fuck up about it. I support your right to have an imaginary playmate. Ok, I'm bored now. I gotta say it is a hilarious thread where half the posts insist that the Left is not anti-religious, and the other half are from Lefties expressing anti-religious sentiment. "By the way, the ACLU fights for the rights of the religious as well when they've been unconstitutionally infringed upon." Including Las Vegas street preachers, and Christian students handing out candy canes with religious messages in school and etc. Of course, as noted here, rightwingers frequently claimed that the ACLU had tried to ban candy canes, based on that same candy cane case. Filters. Really, Kevin - along with everybody else, let me ask - why are you helping spread such memes? Posted by: Dan S. on October 30, 2006 at 11:53 PM | PERMALINKAnd then there is horribly ugly crap which doesn't belong anywhere: I thank my god for the separation of church and state, and if Amy doesn't understand that, I will be happy to take her to city hall and shove a bible, a koran, a torah, and a cross repeatedly up her asshole until she does. Can we all agree that people like this need to be put away? | |