November 16, 2004
JesusLand
Liberal bigotry. Pure and simple.
Not one to shy away from speaking his mind, Keillor proposed a solution to what he deemed a fundamental problem with U.S. elections. “I’m trying to organize support for a constitutional amendment to deny voting rights to born-again Christians,” Keillor smirked. “I feel if your citizenship is in Heaven-like a born again Christian’s is-you should give up your citizenship. Sorry, but this is my new cause. If born again Christians are allowed to vote in this country, then why not Canadians?” chicago.edu
Am I offended? Not really. I think it says a lot about the moral superiority of the left. The casting of all those who oppose you as inferior and unfit is a well-worn path. One that the left never seems to see itself as engaging in. Nevertheless, I'm much more offended by the accusations that I am stupid, a fascist, a rascist, against democracy, or just plain evil.
We could argue about how such a comment about taking away anyone's citizenship based on their group identification would normally be received by the left, even if it were in jest, but I'm really not into group victim hood at any level. (Boring.) Suffice it to say that I point it out for the sake of pointing out liberal hypocrisy. Replace Christian with Black, Jew, Women, or Communist, take your pick of protected groups, and such a statement would be hate speech.
But let's think about this whole 'jesusland' angle many liberals have latched onto post-election to soothe their wounded ideology. It's as if Karl Rove actually did possess Emperor Palpatine magnitude powers and performed a massive jedi mind trick on the partisans of the left. Because in flailing about for a scapegoat (note the almost imperceptible religious reference) Democrats not only confirm an image of secular animosity to religion, but risk cementing their role as anti-religious and being an enemy to people of faith and how would that ever help win another election?
Which begs the question: are Democrats for protection of religious liberty or eradication of it? I ask the question knowing that it is almost rhetorical. Many Democrats are Christians. I know quite a few, and they have varying views on what separation of church and state means. But when I read some of the more strident voices of the left I wonder. Such as the following:
The greatest threat to democracy is not militant Islamic fundamentalists who dwell as terrorists in foreign lands waiting to destabilize the free west; the greatest threat is religious fundamentalism within our own shores.Democracy and fundamentalism are simply incompatible. That has always been the case. We are witnessing it now in Iraq--a state of affairs totally miscalculated by the Bush administration due to its utter ignorance regarding the true mandates for democracy; and that is what we are witnessing in the rhetoric of the religious right in America--itself barely able to sustain the core values of a liberal democracy. dailykos
My working theory about why American Christians are viewed by the left as if they were the Taliban, is that Liberalism itself at some point can become (for some) a fundamentalist religion. One that has all the same characteristics they decry of all fundamentalisms; a stark view of good and evil, every issue seen in black and white terms, good guys, bad guys, etc.
Today's breed of Republicans have nothing to do with the values they used to espouse, and that I myself espouse - the values of personal liberty and conservatism. Yes, I am a "classical conservative", or "neo-progressive" if you will.Today's breed of Republicans, mi gordito, as you will read about in your history books when you get older, are a breed world history has seen before. Except earlier, in the mid-twentieth century, they were called Fascists. Today's Republicans in the USA are Republican Fascists. And anyone who doesn't see that, dearest, have problems and issues in which I am not, and am no longer, willing to entangle myself. There just isn't any justification anymore for support of this "party" of bigoted, fascist thugs. dailykos
Just food for thought, I guess.
Posted by Eric Simonson at November 16, 2004 03:54 AMEric,
Speaking of wounded ideology, as a Conservative ‘True Believer’, how proud are you of the fact that your winning margin of voters were swayed by the Bush campaign’s message of fear mongering, ignorances, intolerance and homophobia? How do I know this? Because Fox News told me so, over and over again.
Your leading thinkers like David Brooks and George Will have been trying for the last week to debunk this notion, the cable networks have already convinced America of. You thought your argument for Bush’s leadership and ability to keep us safe, would be the winning factors to crow about post-election. But, Bill Kristol is nowhere to be found on TV, because Jerry Falwell and James Dobson got his booking instead.
You’re the one who should be embarrassed my friend, because this is what a campaign of Swift Boat Vets, Rathergate and Mary Cheney, wins you.
So, now you’re trying to spin this maladies, casting us Kerry Minority voters as haters of faith. Using religion as a shield against criticism for being duped and pandered to by the Republicans.
I cannot excuse the Keillor quote, however the other two quotes you used support my argument. I’ve been having a back and forth with Craig in the Blue Column, he being a Conservative Christian. I told him that we on the Left do not despise his faith, just the leaders who do hateful things in your name and faith.
Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, Gary Bauer and Ralph Reed represent the Christian Right in our eyes, the same way you assume Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton represent the Black community. And, we both assume what ever the say or do, represents what your group thinks as a whole.
Craig made very clear those men do not speak for him, as I insist there are many things I disagree on with Jackson and Sharpton. However, that does not change the perceptions, or the fact that no one has challenged their authority to speak for them.
Unfortunately, Craig repeated some of the distortions and misinformation fed to them, devised to create hate towards those unknown to you and fear that they pose some kind of threat. This is the base the Republicans have built their majority on, this is what the rest of America sees as Bush’s Majority.
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at November 16, 2004 04:53 AMEric:
Its interesting to see how some people respond to bigoted comments. The manner in which Bert responded (“I cannot excuse the Keillor quote, however….” )is instructive. While he of course cannot support such an idiotic quote, he certainly shows no level of concern about it.
I guess it depends on which side of the aisle the bigot is on. That kind of judgmentalism is rampant on the left. Feminist groups showed this in their support of Bill Clinton, who deserved much scorn for his catting around with an intern over whom he held much power, whether used or not. Yet they virtually gave him a pass, because he is a Democrat.
Michael Moore gets a pass when he creates an arguably false message in his movies by skillful editing…because he is on the left.
How about the curious case of Corrine Brown(D-FL, who made racist statements about Mexican/American White House official Roger Noriega, by claiming that “all you white men” have cause strife in Haiti.
An obviously offended Noriega, who is Mexican-American, shot back, “Do I look white to you? Does Lincoln look white to you?” He was referring to Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL), a Cuban-American, who had assisted in briefing the group.Brown exclaimed, “You guys all look the same.”When questioned about it later, Brown admitted, “Yeah, I did [say it]. I wasn’t speaking of color. I’m speaking of policy. I’m speaking of racist policy. Racist policy!”
Where was the outburst from the left over this kind of behavior. Brown’s statement was certainly as bad as what Trent Lott said, and by most standards far far worse. Yet nary a peep from the left on this one. Why??? The clue came right after her name—-(D-FL).
One of the worst behaviors humans can have is hypocrisy, in my opinion. To be hypocritical simply in order to maintain political power is the height of arrogance. Yet this is what the left has become. Some on the right do the same thing, and they are just as wrong. They get no free pass from me!!
Have the courage to speak out against ignorant statements, even if they are said by your candidate, party or even friend. If you are unable to show such courage, then simply admit to your own cowardice.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 16, 2004 07:57 AMTalk about the next election already and we haven’t even inaugarated the winner of this one.
First I thought it was just stupid.
Now I can’t wait to see who the Democrats pick to run for President.
Will the Democrats let the people of Iowa pick their leader again?
Will it be a more moderate person? One who can appeal to ‘Jesusland’ and still tow the Party line?
I hope the ‘Jesusland’ Map gets a lot of play during the next election for President.
Who will the Republicans pick? Someone who is similar to Bush or a little more centered?
Either way, we will be debating issues and who can be believed. No more Anybody But Bush. Both sides will have to have a candidate that can say who they are and what they stand for. The candidate who wins will be the one who stands for all of us(most of us). Not the Democrats or Republicans.
Neither party is willing to fix anything. They do just enough to make themselves look good for the next election and claim they are trying, and they want to try again.
Well, this is proof positive that there’s no sense of humor on the right. Has anyone mentioned that Garrison Keillor is a comedian?
Posted by: Alejo at November 16, 2004 08:14 AMI don’t get this exercise of pulling random quotes and asking liberals to denounce them. For heaven’s sake, your hero-president spoke at a university that is EXPLICITLY ANTI-CATHOLIC and where people of different races weren’t even allowed to date at the time!
I’m not going to play this game, because it never ends. Garrison Keillor didn’t ask for my permission to make an idiotic comment. He’s just a guy who tells goofy stories on the radio. If I denounce him, you can find someone else.
Posted by: Woody Mena at November 16, 2004 08:15 AMJust for the record, Garrison Keillor is a Lutheran who sings many gospel numbers on his show.
Here’s how it works: The ones in power are fair game. White folks don’t get to complain about racism when black comedians make fun of white people and evangelicals don’t get to complain when comedians people tease them. It’s just the way things are, so if you aren’t willing to be made fun of perhaps you shouldn’t go for a power grab.
Posted by: Alejo at November 16, 2004 08:20 AMThis is what disgusts me about the right. They can say and do the most hateful things, but as soon as someone makes fun of ‘em, they get all victimey and whiney.
And, oh by the way, a devout Christian.
Posted by: Rocky at November 16, 2004 08:23 AMThis is what disgusts me about the right. They can say and do the most hateful things, but as soon as someone makes fun of ‘em, they get all victimey and whiney.
Yeah, no kidding. The phrase “the pot calling the kettle black” is not in the conservative lexicon at all (unless it’s a liberal doing the “calling”).
I don’t know if I would say that evangelical Christians are “fair game”, but they do run the country now. Maybe they should just chill out a little bit. God and George Bush are on their side, so what should they care about radio hosts?
Posted by: Woody Mena at November 16, 2004 08:39 AMIn Jesusland, we turn the other cheek. In Jesusland, the estate tax goes to feed and house the poor. In Jesusland, sooner a camel fit through the eye of a needle than a rich man make it into the Senate. In Jesusland, a crime against the least among us is a crime against us all. Middle America is not Jesusland.
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at November 16, 2004 08:46 AMDemocrats should move on. Evangelicals contributed to George Bush’s victory the same way feminists or black voters would have contributed to a Kerry win. What a surprise!
Liberals are giving the impression that Bush was somehow imposed on the country, or that this election was an anomaly. George Bush got 51% of the vote. This is essentially the same percentage that Republican candidates won nationwide in 2002. It is becomming a trend.
Democrats gave this election their best shot and they lost. They didn’t lose by much, but the loss seems to be consistent with other measures. Nothing in politics is permanent, but the Dems clearly have work to do. Remaining blind to the problem is not helpful. Pretending that Bush voters are less intelligent is itself stupid. The Democratic Party has been losing ground for a generation. What is it doing wrong? That should be the question.
My first job out of college was doing marketing research at a small computer firm. They had a wonderful product, but it was very hard to use. After I was working there a couple weeks, the big boss called me in and asked me what I thought of the product. I told him the truth: that it was a wonderful product, but very hard to use. I’ll never forget the response. The said, “If people are too stupid to understand our product, perhaps they shouldn’t buy it.” They didn’t. I moved to a better job. The company moved into bankruptcy with management thinking they were right. People were just too stupid to know what they wanted.
“Middle America is not Jesusland.”
Amen to that!
Us dumb ol red states is so ignorant.
Middle America doesn’t turn to the govt for everything. In middle America, we don’t believe in robbing from those who work to give to those who don’t want to. In middle America, a crime against our neighbor is a crime against us all and justice prevails, even if WE are the ones who must seek it.
In middle America, we believe in taking care of ourselves.
Yea, I can’t wait till I’m sofistykated and smart nough to move to one of them thar blue, true Jesusland, states.
kctim,
you don’t call farm subsidies support from the government?
Jack, Bush wasn’t elected, he was coronated. Nobody ever raised more money faster than Bush in the 2000 campaign.
To quote the great philosopher Elmer Fudd,
“Thares sometin screwy goin on awound here”.
Since when did Christian voters become a unitary bloc? Certainly, they voted together in this election to a greater degree than usual, but the degree of unity is still far less than among Blacks, homosexuals, Cuban-Americans and many other identifiable groups.
The fact of the matter is that both candidates received votes from intelligent folks who did research and voted in their enlightened self-interest as well as votes from those who voted based on a gut instinct, a herd mentality, or a random guess. Neither party can claim the intellectual high ground: the Democrats garner more support among those with post-graduate degrees, while the G.O.P. does better among those with college degrees.
As bloggers, we should do our best to present factual information and intelligent opinion about candidates, issues, and parties. As citizens we should inform ourselves and encourage others to do so. As consumers, we should avoid intellectually vacuous “news” sources. As adults, we should refrain from name-calling.
Posted by: S at November 16, 2004 11:03 AMI think I’d take exception to one of your arguments. You say that liberalism can become, at a certain point, a fundamentalist religion, and go on to list the evils of radical liberalism. I’m going to agree with you there.
However, this does nothing to excuse any fundamentalists on “your side.” Saying “Yes, we’re awful, horrible, and despicable because of XY and Z, but so are they!” just makes you both awful, horrible, and despicable.
Posted by: Nicholas Mason at November 16, 2004 11:22 AMRocky
Yes, I know that.
But, does middle America believe in killing everyone, instead of turning the other cheek?
Does middle America believe in ignoring its poor?
Does middle America believe in electing only rich guys?
Does middle America believe that killing a poor person is any less important than killing a rich person?
NO!!!
But yet, you didn’t seem to mind when those statements were made.
To characterize middle America as an unholy bastion of self serving idiots because we don’t rely on the govt in order to survive is wrong.
Whoa, hold on there Sparky. Don’t yell at me because I didn’t condemn JB’ poor attempt at humor.
Posted by: Rocky at November 16, 2004 12:22 PMBert -
Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, Gary Bauer and Ralph Reed represent the Christian Right in our eyes, the same way you assume Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton represent the Black community. And, we both assume what ever the(y) say or do, represents what your group thinks as a whole.
So, you understand that Jackson and Sharpton don’t speak for the people they ‘represent’, then why would you insist on assuming that Falwell and pals speak for mainstream Christianity? To point this out, and then ignore what the implications are for your own behaviour is ignorant. Those of us capable of logically concluding that extremists shouting from their pulpits are exactly that — extremists — are responsible to help dispel the notion on both sides that these people speak for all.
What I think Eric is trying to point out, in part, is that there is this sense of ‘entitled jesting’ within the left that would be seen as incredibly inappropriate when directed at any group other than christianity, if not downright hateful. Living in a college town, I see it all the time. People make fun of christians without a second thought as to the fact that they’re being really offensive to someone who might be right there behind them. I really must disagree with Alejo’s comment that those in the majority are fair game. It doesn’t matter whose side is larger, we shouldn’t be advocating hatred towards the other side. Its not as though we’re talking about light-hearted joking, we’ve got some rather mean-spirited things being directed at an entire group of people. As far as I’m concerned, that’s just as bad when its directed at a large group as when its directed at a small one. Its not as if we can’t talk about the problems we have with what we see as extreme ideologies without being condescending or inflammatory. More than likely, you won’t find anyone on either side backing those extreme viewpoints, because most people aren’t extremists. Most people CAN’T be extremists anyways, or else we’d call it mainstream. Take this for example:
This is what disgusts me about the right. They can say and do the most hateful things, but as soon as someone makes fun of ‘em, they get all victimey and whiney.
Clearly there are persons on the right who do and say hateful things, however, these are not the same people as those who ‘get all victimey and whiney’. If someone is going to say and do hateful things, their response to your comments is not to whine, it would be to retaliate. The ‘victimey and whiney’ people you’re addressing are the same ones who denounce the hateful actions and speech of extremists, and are ‘victimey and whiney’ about being consistently grouped in with those extremists, while at the same time, those doing the grouping talk about how Sharpton and Jackson don’t speak for all black americans. They are quick to separate themselves from the extremists in their own backyard, and just as quick to group the extremists on the other side with their entire neighborhood.
kctim,
You could not be more wrong. In fact, the Red States depend more on the federal government than the Blue States. See this analysis based on the 2000 election (almost the same states).
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html
Interesting implication here: Blue state voters should support federal tax cuts, and raise their state taxes. Then they could spend their $ in ways consistent with their values.
Posted by: Woody Mena at November 16, 2004 12:55 PMAParker, dispite all the claims to the contrary I belive the population, be they left leaning or right leaning are more toward the canter than they are portrayed.
The only people talking about a conservitive “mandate” are the pundits of the loopy far right extreme.
For Falwell to claim that Sept. 11 happened because of gay’s and feminists deserves derision.
That he claims he has 25 million followers that put Bush in the White House is equally absurd.
People have a tendancy to belive those that yell the loudest.
Posted by: Rocky at November 16, 2004 01:08 PMAParker —
I really must disagree with Alejo’s comment that those in the majority are fair game. It doesn’t matter whose side is larger, we shouldn’t be advocating hatred towards the other side. Its not as though we’re talking about light-hearted joking, we’ve got some rather mean-spirited things being directed at an entire group of people.
I should probably note that I was joking in order to make a point: Nobody likes to be mocked. I find it amusing that the party that resisted desegregation and equal rights is now complaining about what others say about them. I also don’t want to live in a totally PC world where a comedian can’t say anything nasty about anyone (even if it is bitter). Let’s remember that Garrison Keillor is NOT a politician or a representative of anything. He let his anger get the better of him and he said something he should regret. Perhaps when he recovers his aplomb we’ll hear an apology from him, perhaps we won’t. If we do we’ll know he’s a better man for having admitted his mistake.
Posted by: Alejo at November 16, 2004 01:12 PMeric:
as the author of such gems as “vote red or dead”
you kinda lost any credibility to call liberals “over the top”….
again…wonderful punditry…your master would be proud……
Posted by: rob at November 16, 2004 01:27 PMYeah, mine was a poor attempt at humor. Things are apparently way over the edge here in America. Are we not allowed to joke about Christianity anymore without being accused of Christianity-bashing? Or will it always result in some pointless screed like Eric’s article? Am I a bigot because I point out that we all fall short of the teachings of Jesus? Am I hateful for saying Middle America is not Jesusland? Is someone going to accuse me of being smugly condescending again?
Posted by: Joseph Briggs at November 16, 2004 01:30 PMRocky -
I agree, it is always the tendency of those who yell loudest to stick in the minds of those hearing them. But we must make sure not to accuse the ‘other side’ of siding with those extremists by default.
Alejo -
I don’t want to live in a totally PC world either, but we shouldn’t be indignant about other people getting offended by our comments either. I’m a Christian, yet I found ‘irreverant’ movies like Dogma and Saved! to be quite funny. But these movies weren’t making fun of christianity so much as they were making fun of how people interpret their roles as christians. And they did that without condescention or disdain for them as people.
Posted by: AParker at November 16, 2004 01:34 PMJB —
You’re smugly condescending. (Somebody hadda do it.)
Posted by: Alejo at November 16, 2004 01:34 PMJoseph -
You not a bigot for pointing those things out. They’re true, regardless of how pious anyone acts. But making fun of Christianity through stereotypes is something which should be frowned on, just as we frown on racial jokes based on stereotypes. As my previous comment indicated, we can make fun of certain behaviours by christians, but don’t direct it towards the entire community. I find it ridiculous for any Christian to be anti-abortion, yet pro-death penalty, but I’m not going to make condescending remarks regarding the christian community as a whole for the contradiction in values that I see voiced by some. By pointing out inherent contradiction, perhaps some will be helped to straighten out their contradicting values; but by being ‘smugly condescending’ you do not provoke thought, rather defensiveness and division.
Posted by: AParker at November 16, 2004 01:45 PMRocky
Sparky? LOL!!!
I didn’t mean it to sound that way. Good one though, thanks.
Woody
Even the red states have blue counties.
I do believe that ALL the states should pay less taxes for federal programs though. Then they could adjust their state taxes to support USEFUL programs.
Eric
I agree that to many on the left, liberalism is like a religion.
It is to be pushed, promoted and put into power at all costs.
Eric Simonson:
You’re selective and myopic point-of-view never ceases to amaze me. Am I supposed to go Conservative Blogs now and quote them? The phrase “and Kill Their Babies Too…” is quite common there. I have read things in Republican Blogs that support killings of prisoners, torture and removal of basic human rights.
Shall I start Pasting them here? I don’t think this site has the Memory to hold all of it.
Aldous.
Posted by: Aldous at November 16, 2004 02:13 PMno aldous…please do…
especially those of evangelical leaders who feel that homosexuality should be a capital offense…you heard me…kill em cause they’re gay….
i love those turn the other cheek people….
and on christian-bashing…..it’s not as if we liberals are “keeping christians down” with your multimillion dollar super churches, fundamentalist universities, and soon to be less restrictions from the govt…
yeah you christians got it rough…having to be poked fun at by some godless comedian…doesn’t he know this is america…he’s not allowed to say such things…..
This just out. Get a load of this:
———————————————————
11/16/2004 National Field Director for Republican Party sought unsafe sex, multiple partners online; Admits to profile but can’t recall content Filed under: General— site admin @ 1:27 pm Email This By John Byrne | RAW STORY Editor
The National Field Director and number two political director for the Republican Party Daniel Gurley solicited unprotected sex and multiple sex partners in an online profile at gay.com, in seeming contradiction with the Party’s call for abstinence and positions on gay issues.
——————————————————
Aldous.
rob -
What you seem to be saying is that it’s okay to bash christians because there are rich churches, and fundamentalist universities. It is incredible, your train of thought. Is it okay to bash black Americans because there are lots of them making millions in sports, its not as though we’re “keeping them down”.
“kill em cause they’re gay…” You think that this is the viewpoint of mainstream (evangelical, even) Christianity? Yeah yeah, you’re joking … not making comments expressing distaste for ‘those turn the other cheek people’ which you love so much.
Posted by: AParker at November 16, 2004 02:47 PMnot at all parker…
my point was the indignity that is expressed when christians are heckled….
christians don’t have it so bad in this country…..yet some stupid comedian make a few jokes at thier expense…and eric gets to write about “liberal bigotry”
that is my frustration…personally, i think organized religion is a dangerous thing….it gives people a way to profit and gain power in the name of the almighty.
god is great…but the people who run his houses are just plain douchebags.
and please…lets not play the “replace christian with black or jew”…its a nonsensical game…and by lots of black people making millioins you mean a few thousand right? out of the millions of african americans who live in poverty or lower middle class? and im sure that some of them made their income in other ways than just sports, as you seem to suggest. do me a favor….drive down to watts in los angeles, or to the projects in new york and chicago, or hell half of cleveland….and tell me how theyre doin…
Posted by: rob at November 16, 2004 03:25 PMThe problem is, Keillor’s kind of got a point. (To a degree.) I don’t know about the rest of you, but in both New Jersey and Virginia I’ve turned on my radio and heard some pretty powerful condemnations of American values from Christian evangelists. I’ve heard some of them come right out and argue against the concept of civil rights in the legal system, with the reasoning that slaves have no rights under their Master so man has no rights under God. This is literally working AGAINST the fundamental principles of the constitution and our democratic society. So I understand what he means when he accuses the more extreme examples of christianity of behaving as if they were foreign citizens but wanting the right to vote here anyway.
Posted by: Jarandhel at November 16, 2004 03:25 PMReading your post and the many comments on it makes me sick.
Why do we have to spend so much time bashing? Those on the left bash those on the right, and those on the right bash those on the left. Of course, the extremists do this: Michael Moore on the left and Ann Coulter on the right are good examples.
But why must the rest of us participate? You pick what some lefty says that is extreme and you bash everyone on the left with it. Those on the left pick on Ann Coulter who calls all liberals traitors, and use it to bash everyone on the right. This is ridiculous!
Supposedly you are trying to have a thoughtful blog for discussion of the issues. Why don’t you do this? And all you commenters, why don’t you do the same?
Politics is not a means of spreading dirt, but spreading knowledge and understanding of issues. Let’s debate the issues and not the dirt!
Posted by: Paul Siegel at November 16, 2004 04:04 PMAParker,
If you go back and read my comment, I wrote that it is a stated ‘perception’ that Jesse Jackson speaks for Blacks, and Falwell speaks for Christians. I do not want to believe that both are true, but until we challenge these perceptions, they remain.
I would also like to make one other observation about ‘Jesusland’. Does anyone else think it ironic that included in it’s territory is the only state (Nevada) with legalized prostitution?
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at November 16, 2004 04:19 PMrob -
Your douchebag comment made me laugh. I’m not kidding, it’s true in too many cases. Definitely a majority of leaders in the church are NOT douchebags, but the ones everyone hears about definitely are.
But as far as my analogy. There are very VERY few megachurches in America. Similar to the disproportionate number of millionaire sports players. My father in law is a minister. He makes less than 12,000 a year for all his work. There are many ministers in exactly the same boat. Theirs is a life of sacrifice, and acting as though christianity is all about the televangelists and the megachurches is as ridiculous as my analogy.
I’m just as frustrated as you with organized religion, perhaps more as I am constantly identified with things I don’t believe. But the response should not be disdain for the entire christian community.
Posted by: AParker at November 16, 2004 04:26 PMIt is amazing how many liberals think it is okay to make fun of Christians and more often employ harmful stereotypes. This whole divisiveness is getting out of hand. We are all Americans. I don’t think we should believe Jews are more loyal to Israel than the U.S. or that blacks put Africa before America.
Bush won majorities in the red states and he won a lot of votes in the blue states. Bush won nearly 4.5 million votes in blue California. If these Californians just stayed home, Kerry would have won. Bush got more that 2.7 million in blue New York. If these New Yorkers had voted for Kerry instead of Bush, Kerry would have won. You could say that California or New York elected Bush. It makes as much sense as some of the other theories floating around.
The fact is that Bush won fair and square. This was a close election that George W. Bush won. Liberals are trying to figure out why their man lost. Instead of looking at the maps, they should look in the mirror.
Christianity…right: An imbecillic, self centered, exclusive thought replacement system based on unprovable, scienceless, 1st century hysteria for which there are no original texts and for which more people have died than any other cause save natural death since its inception
All true.
Yea, verily! that’s for me! Jeepers, it Saves all that time wasted on that horribly uneccessary cognition.
Everybody sing!
Onward Christain sol..diers
Brains left at the door…
Kill and maim for Je…sus
Leave the stem cells on the floor.
Don’t forget to wor…ship
Whatever the hell that means.
Don’t think anything sci..en..ti..fic;
Your head’ll split at the seams.
Bob Jones, Oral and Fal…well
Delusional morons all;
Coopting rights and freedom
In the name of the impostlible Paul.
OH,….(repeat ad nauseum)
I’m not biting on that flamebait, but you’re certainly helping to make Eric’s point.
Posted by: AParker at November 16, 2004 05:48 PMaparker:
peace dude…..its pretty clear that we agree on some points…so i guess the progress is in the middle somewhere….
Posted by: rob at November 16, 2004 05:56 PMEric:
I think it says a lot about the moral superiority of the left. The casting of all those who oppose you as inferior and unfit is a well-worn path. One that the left never seems to see itself as engaging in.”
I may be wrong, but did you just stereotype the left as being stereotypers? I think you condescendingly casted the left as a group that casts their opposition as an inferior group. Then you point out liberal hypocrisy.
I think that if you look hard enough and create your definitions strictly enough, everyone is a hypocrite at some point.
Also, you said
Replace Christian with Black, Jew, Women, or Communist, take your pick of protected groups, and such a statement would be hate speech.
What about replace born-again Christian with homosexuals and replace voting with marriage. Is that still hate speech? Because that’s the message sent to the gay community this last election. I bring it up because you seem to complain that this individual comedian’s comments should be called hate speech (You refer to it as “Liberal bigotry”), but ignore the hateful message sent by entire populations (which I am sure include both liberals and conservatives).
Maybe you didn’t address it because it’s a whole different can of beans, but I felt that it tied in with the religiously-themed thread. Posted by: PC at November 16, 2004 06:35 PM
I agree with PC here.
I think it says a lot about the moral superiority of the left. The casting of all those who oppose you as inferior and unfit is a well-worn path. One that the left never seems to see itself as engaging in.
And presumedly, Eric never sees himself as engaging in arguments about moral superiority, and does not cast all those who oppose him as inferior and unfit.
Incidentilly, it appears that 7% of the U.S. population are evangelists. On the other side of the scale 12% of the U.S. population describe themselves as agnostic/atheist.
64% of americans believe that truth is relative to the person.
Evangelists are more likely to be Republican, but Born-agains are actually more likely to be Democrat. However, Evangelists strongly believe in prostelyazing, and the vote far more often than born agains.
http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=Topic&TopicID=16
Now that’s some REAL “food for thought”.
Julia
Posted by: julia at November 16, 2004 07:23 PMBert,
…how proud are you of the fact that your winning margin of voters were swayed by the Bush campaign’s message of fear mongering, ignorances, intolerance and homophobia?…casting us Kerry Minority voters as haters of faith. Using religion as a shield against criticism for being duped and pandered to by the Republicans.
Bert, you’re proving my point. Anyone who thinks differently from the Liberal orthodoxy is ignorant, intolerant, and hateful. Those that aren’t are duped or bribed.
Who drummed up this idea that right wing fundamentalist Christians are the source of Bush’s victory? I submit that it is less true than it has been portrayed. Bush gained voters in all segments of society since the 2000 election. Not only that but the marriage initiatives passed overwhelmingly in blue states as well as red states. Is there a ‘jesusland’ here to demonize?
I am pointing out that liberals are seizing on this idea that christians are somehow ignorant voters who lost them the election. I’ve looked at the exit polls and there is alot more there than just a single ‘moral values’ question.
For instance this question closely mirrors Bush’s popular vote vote percentage.
DECISION TO GO TO WAR IN IRAQ
Approve (51%)
Disapprove (45%)
or this one-
IS IRAQ WAR PART OF WAR ON TERRORISM?
Overall- Yes (55%), No (42%)
American Pundit,
This is what disgusts me about the right. They can say and do the most hateful things, but as soon as someone makes fun of ‘em, they get all victimey and whiney.
Well, we hateful people are a thin skinned bunch.
S,
Since when did Christian voters become a unitary bloc?
Exactly. This is a voting block that is serving as the left’s scapegoat only. Red states, blue states, sour grapes.
Jesusland.com Wouldn’t you know it, as soon as I think about registering a domain name it’s already too late.
Posted by: eric simonson at November 17, 2004 01:18 AMEric,
Jerry Falwell stated on Fox News that his coalition of 25 million voters helped Bush win the election.
I guess that would speak for itself.
awww cmon rocky…don’t push eric off his soapbox….
he looks so happy up there….
Posted by: rob at November 17, 2004 02:13 AMHe also doesn’t mention Pat Robertson’s Christian Coalition.
Gee, I think that dates back to the eighties.
Anyone who thinks differently from the Liberal orthodoxy is ignorant, intolerant, and hateful. Those that aren’t are duped or bribed.
Isn’t the basic thrust of this post that anyone who thinks differently from the Conservative orthodoxy is ignorant, intolerant, and hateful?
And look at the evidence: the words of two people. Is that any differently than saying that they heard two White people make racist comments, therefore Whites are collectively racist?
Woody,
I hate to say this but I think that we’re all racist in some ways.
isn’t the song “everyone’s a little bit racist” in a broadway musical right now?
anywho…
in looking at my own political beliefs, something i do often because i seem to question everything, and i think that the split is coming more from progressive/conservative rift rather than a democrat/republican rift.
given, more republicans lean toward the conservative side, but there is a growing movement of progressive republicans, who, like “gov. arnold” are open about social ideas, but still tough republican conservatives on business and fiscal ideas.
IF that was the mainstream of republicans…i’d say that i’d vote republican….however, what we see more of, at least exposure-wise, are the christian radical right, the neo-con bushies and their groupies like eric, and well….frankly…those people drive me nuts.
Posted by: rob at November 17, 2004 04:53 PMEric-
Can’t you conservatives take a joke? Lighten up. You’re only the party in power. Are you afraid there’s nowhere left to go but down? Cheer up. when you become the minority party, the general conservative droning about how much the Democrats are getting in your way will actually have some emotional resonance.
Tell the thought police it was a false alarm, send them back to their station!
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 17, 2004 09:24 PMcan conservatives take a joke….steven….sure they can!
of course..it has to be at the expense of liberals, feminists, gays, or the french…they love thems frenchy jokes…
otherwise no.
Posted by: rob at November 17, 2004 11:58 PMsorry…i meant stephen…..my bad.
i know i hate it when my name gets misspelled….
Posted by: rob at November 18, 2004 12:01 AMYou are stupid, a fascist, a rascist, against democracy, and just plain evil.
Posted by: Eris at November 18, 2004 01:23 PMEris
“You are stupid, a fascist, a rascist, against democracy, and just plain evil”
Could you be more specific.
Posted by: Rocky at November 18, 2004 01:48 PM Bob: oops….Rob:
I hate it when my name gets misspelled too.
Posted by: choesackodoughknuts at November 18, 2004 01:49 PMA quote from Clinton:
Far more important than what I saw the Pentecostals do were the friendships I made among them. I liked and admired them because they lived their faith. They are strictly anti-abortion, but unlike some others, they will make sure that any unwanted baby, regardless of race or disability, has a loving home. They disagreed with me on abortion and gay rights, but they still followed Christ’s admonition to love their neighbors.
I would say, as a Southerner, and a liberal, that I agree with Clinton’s assessment.
Julia
Posted by: Julia at November 18, 2004 01:56 PMhmmm..dare i comment…..yeah:
“you are stupid”: i know you are but what am i.
“a fascist,”: fascist?! i just met her!
“a racist,”: wow all my black, asian and gay friends are gonna be pissed.
“against democracy”: how am i against democracy? i vote, i write my senators and my congresspeople, i read…….OHHHHHHH, you mean i don’t love GW Bush with undying loyalty like the CIA is being forced to…..
“and are just plain evil”: well…..if that is the case, and i certainly hope its not, then i’ll burn in hell and you can go to heaven…..but i’ll bet you a case o bourbon that i’m not such a bad guy…..
and joebag: funny!
Julia:
Clinton’s comments about Pentecostals, who are rather fundamental Christians, mirror what I see in the Christians I know. There are many out there who don’t live their faith, but there are many who do. For that matter, there are many non-Christians who don’t live their beliefs, and there are many who do.
I like how Clinton managed to state the areas of disagreement without condemning, and to honor their committment to their faith without demeaning them as idiots. Very nicely and tastefully said.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 18, 2004 03:10 PMJesus Fucking Christ, people. I was referring to a line in the original blog. Nevermind.
Posted by: Eris at November 18, 2004 04:14 PMStephen,
Hey, I like jokes. Even dry humorless ones. Was it a joke?
I’m not really into PC codes, but I have no problem pointing out that the left likes to enforce it’s PC codes but is oblivious to it’s own infractions.
Is this a predominant liberal opinion? I think it deserves some exploring because that’s what we are here for. Unfortunately most liberal comments seem more intent on avoiding or deflecting the issue. If on the one hand this comment was just a joke, what about the charges that Republicans are fascists, bigots, and hatemongers? Is that a joke too? Hyperboly? Exaggeration? Please do tell.
Posted by: ericsimonson at November 18, 2004 09:01 PMEric, there are morons on both sides of the fence. The hyperbole and vitriol flows both ways. Does that make it right? I don’t think so. It lessens the possibility of finding a common ground for discussion.
Have you ever actually listened to “A Prairie Home Companion”? Have you ever read one of Keillor’s books? You will not find in them the type of comments that your post is about.
Call it frustration call it any thing you like.
The quote you cite is an abberation. I’m sure that if I look long and hard enough I will find a quote from just about any public person from the right or left that is just as assinine.
Lets all take a Prozac and move on.
I love it when the right speaks about the left’s desire to eradicate religion and take no responsibility for the voices of their causes like Jerry Falwell and Bob Jones.
Their blind portrayal of people that actually support Constitutional tenents like freedom of speech or separation of Church and State as demagogs wishing to cast religious zealots into hell.
I wonder which right wing it is that supports the change of house rules to protect Tom Delay, that spire of morality, from leadership removal in anticipation of his indictment for selling favors for a fee. Must be them real religious and pious folk.
Maybe it is the right that waves family values like it were their own personal flag. Yep, I’m convinced of their sincerety.
Posted by: Greg at November 19, 2004 01:30 AMeris:
sorry bout that….WOW….your sarcasm is hella sharper than mine…..
i likes the hit you with a 2x4 kinda humor….you know…stupid…
anywho….sorry bout the missed joke….and my use of it to further my own politocomical goals….
Posted by: rob at November 19, 2004 02:57 AMthere is a growing movement of progressive republicans, who, like “gov. arnold” are open about social ideas, but still tough republican conservatives on business and fiscal ideas.IF that was the mainstream of republicans…i’d say that i’d vote republican
rob, that’s pretty insightful and I have to agree to an extent. I was seriously considering McCain in 2000 - Gore was a little too liberal for me, and Lieberman was blaming video games for all of society’s woes.
Rocky,
We all know there are idiots of every stripe, Keilor’s comment may in fact be an abberation, because I’ve never heard his show, in fact I had never heard of him at all before this quote. The fact that he is on NPR doesn’t surprise me. What if it is an aberation for Keillor to have made this comment? It’s not an aberation in the left overall.
My only point is that the bastions of cultural diversity, understanding, and inclusion are not really all that inclusive or understanding or diverse. I must be right because the response from liberals has basically been to ignore it.
I would ignore it except for the fact that every single day Republicans are called rascist bigots by the same group of people.
Posted by: ericsimonson at November 19, 2004 01:17 PMGee Eric could that have started when the neocons made the word liberal an insult?
Posted by: Rocky at November 21, 2004 10:47 AM
