I’m Done With Paul Hackett
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Dumb Things Said By Smart People, Religion
I appreciate his service in Iraq, but this is ridiculous…
Hackett said in a Sunday column in The Dispatch: “The Republican Party has been hijacked by the religious fanatics that, in my opinion, aren’t a whole lot different than Osama bin Laden and a lot of the other religious nuts around the world.”
And no…he’s not backing down…
“I said it. I meant it. I stand behind it,” he said.
Jeezus…what a hack(ett).
(h/t: Political Wire)
This entry was posted on Wednesday, January 18th, 2006 and is filed under Dumb Things Said By Smart People, Religion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
January 18th, 2006 at 4:31 pm
Can we see the quote with some context?
January 18th, 2006 at 4:33 pm
Also, is your claim that there aren’t Christian wackos or that they haven’t hijacked the Republican party?
January 18th, 2006 at 4:34 pm
So you don’t think the GOP has been hijacked by religious fanatics?!?
January 18th, 2006 at 5:11 pm
Matt and Rob,
I’m not going to put words in his mouth, but my guess is that Justin’s main problem is Hackett’s comparison of Christian fundamentalist Republicans to Osama bin Ladin, et al.
January 18th, 2006 at 5:55 pm
Obviously, Hackett was referring to Osama Bin Laden fanatic religious convictions and not to his terrorist acts. Hackett’s statement is perfectly ok.
January 18th, 2006 at 6:15 pm
Well considering both the neo conservative philosophy and islamic fundamentalist philosophy at their core are both essentially the same and came from similar beginnings…he’s right.
January 18th, 2006 at 6:18 pm
I believe Hackett was right.
Good on him for standing by what he said.
It IS right, and it needed to be said.
As for the comparison, think for a moment -
Religious fanaticism (remember “carrying out God’s will”?)
Terrorism – is that an unjustified attack on another nation? OBL attacks US, US attacks Iraq. Where is the diff? Justification? LOL!!! Bush’s “justifications” amount to the obfuscation of the century already. I am waiting for Iran now.
January 18th, 2006 at 8:14 pm
I think Hackett has got it exactly right. Thank-you Paul for speaking the truth. Religious fanatism is very dangerous whether in the middle east or midwest.
January 18th, 2006 at 9:01 pm
Matt, I don’t have the context, and maybe I should. But I think that statement was like Hillary’s plantation statement. Ridiculous incendiary rhetoric that’s plainly just pandering and easily dismissed. Personally, i don’t want Dems to be rallying around statements like this. It does us no good whatsoever in the next election to alienate people who consider themselves very religious, but politically independent or even liberal.
Now, to clarify…do I think the Republican party has been taken over by the religious right? Absolutely, and it’s a sad thing to see. Do I think comparing the religious right with OBL is anything but hacky rhetoric? No.
Heh, that question is so loaded I almost thought it was rhetorical…
However, I don’t consider them “wackos.” I think some of them are much too zealous with pushing their world view on the rest of us, but that’s their perogative. Sure, it frustrates me too, but throwing nonsense talk like “wackos” around doesn’t help anybody. Also, I think the Republican party welcomed the religious right into their party and their policies. Hardly a hijacking. Personally, I hope it bites them in the end, but we’ll just have to wait and see.
Even if your “obviously” is right, comparing OBL’s politics and the religious right’s politics is ridiculous. But it wasn’t exactly obvious to me.
Huh? In what way did they come from the same place?
You really don’t see the difference between 9/11 and a multi-nation attack on a genocidal despot? I was no supporter of the Iraq war and I still think the war is being badly mismanaged, but I can certainly see the difference.
January 18th, 2006 at 10:05 pm
Wow, I like Hackett a hell of alot more now.
The Republican party has been Hijacked by religious fundamentalists.
How anyone can deny that is beyond me.
They are the American Taliban.
January 18th, 2006 at 10:22 pm
I can’t decide which ignorance is more stunning, the ignorance of Osama bin Laden’s religious beliefs (not his terrorist actions) or the ignorance of fundamentalist and evangelical christians in the US. I’m not being pejorative, but rather literal. You can’t seriously say the things that have been said in comments without either enormous bad faith or stunning ignorance.
As a matter of religion, Osama bin Laden believes that all infidels should convert or die (partial exception is made for “people of the Book”). There is no US christian denomination that adopts such language either as practical policy or as theoretical belief. The closest is the general belief that Heaven is closed to nonbelievers but there’s a huge difference between the two.
As a matter of faith, no US christian denomination denigrates women in their testimony or places them in such difficult positions as ObL’s brand of Islam does. Lower inheritance rights, lack of rights to their children, crushing disability in court testimony, the list goes on and on.
As a matter of faith ObL believes in a very different role for the religious judiciary. While you might find religious christian courts in the US, none of them assert universal jurisdiction, nor the right to assess physical punishments, nor the right to impose the death penalty. These are all very much part of sharia courts in ObL’s religious world view.
The list could go on outlining differences but I think the point is made. Two very dissimilar faiths are being unfairly conflated. The kindest possible interpretation is honest ignorance of one or both of these religious world views has led to foolish statements being made.
January 19th, 2006 at 12:08 am
Amazing and sad.
Rob, do you wonder why more people aren’t coming over to the Democratic party? And remember, I’m a Dem. Seeing stuff like this really tears me up because I believe my party’s values. But this kind of nonsensical rhetoric? No way.
January 19th, 2006 at 1:51 am
I’m saddened that most of the comments so far are disagreeing with Justin. It may just be the nature of the internet, in that people are usually more inclined to reply to posts when they disagree then when they agree, but I certainly hope the posts here aren’t reflective of this blog’s readership as a whole.
January 19th, 2006 at 2:30 am
I understand the sentiment, but hey…that’s what this blog is for. Some agree, some disagree and that’s just how it is. But am I disappointed by the whole “wacko” and “fanatic” talk? Oh yeah.
In any event, let the discussions fall where they may. We’ll keep blogging, and hopefully everybody here will keep responding and offering their thoughts.
January 19th, 2006 at 5:54 am
The point that Hackett was making is that religious fanatism is a dangerous thing and that many on the Christian right display the same sense that they KNOW the truth that motivates the followers of OBL.
Take for example Pat Robertson. Ran for the GOP nomination for President. Has more viewers than CNN. Frequent guest at the White House an other Republican gatherings. Now think of some of the things he has said. That homosexuals and feminists are to blame for 911. That God is going to punish a town because of who they voted for School board. That hurricanes are going to strike Orlando because of Disneys HR policies. That we should assassinate a foreign leader we disagree with.
No.. he is not OBL… but he displays the same mind set (I know exactly what is in God’s mind and he don’t like YOU) that drives the Islamic fundamentalist movement. That you can’t see that Justin saddens me.
January 19th, 2006 at 7:14 am
Joe Albanese – You know those muslim terrorists and fundamentalist christians, they all have two hands and one head too, scary parallels. Knowing the truth ahead of the evidence is not exactly an uncommon condition among human beings. It’s also not particularly dangerous when there’s a general consensus that you won’t kill people or hurt them physically when they disagree with your knowledge. US christians take part in such a general consensus and when they drift off of it are internally disciplined within the larger movement. ObL’s movement doesn’t.
Picking up Pat Robertson, yes he gets invited to the White House. Yes he has a constituency. It’s a lot smaller than it used to be. CNN’s viewership is falling too and faster is not a commentary on Robertson but on the bad actions of CNN which is an entirely different thread. But when Pat goes off into lala land as he did with his recent Sharon comments, he gets called on the mat and criticized by the entire Right including the President of the United States. He then apologizes and eats crow in order to keep that access. The right just had a “Sister Souljah” moment and demonstrated that it’s not in thrall to its own crazies. The left is pretending it just didn’t happen.
I feel like I’m in the bad old days when I’d have had to explain that no, catholics really didn’t have armories in their church basements for the day when the Pope says to rise up and take over the US. Free speech ensures that fringers, radicals, and crazies will have their say but it’s important to note the reaction of the generally moderate majority and in the case of the religious right, that moderate reaction is to punish the radicals when they get unreasonable. That’s healthy for our system. I wish the left’s relationship with its own out of control fringers was as healthy.
January 19th, 2006 at 9:31 am
Remember, teaching intelligent design theory in public schools is morally equivalent to killing 3000 innocent people in the name of Allah. Back me up on this HACKett !!
January 19th, 2006 at 10:08 am
Don’t get me wrong Joe. I understand that point, but I think it’s just plain wrong. Sure, both men are zealous in their beliefs, but that is pretty much where the equivalency stops and the differences begin.
Listen, I’m a strong proponent of the separation of church and state, a woman’s right to choose and opening up stem cell research. In fact, you’d be hard pressed to find somebody else who has argued for it more strongly in the past several months since I actually have to defend those views on this site.
But playing the “Equivalency” game between people like Robertson and OBL sets off my BS detector, and that’s why I posted what I did. It would have simply been enough for Hackett to say that the Republican party was controlled by the religious right, and that’s something that needs to change. Instead, he raised the spectre of OBL to associate and demonize them further and I think it’s going to hurt him with EVERYBODY except those who would have already supported him.
But hey, maybe I’m completely wrong. Maybe associating the religious right and OBL will actually bring MORE strongly devout people into the Democratic tent. Call me crazy, but that seems highly likely.
January 19th, 2006 at 10:25 am
There’s another reason why, as religious fundamentalists go, Robertson is not in the same league as OBL. Even when both religions are interpreted literally (as fundamentalists are wont to do), their political implications are quite different, for the simple reason that the two religions have much different outlooks on the relationship between religion and state. (In a nutshell: Christianity looks upon church, state and civil society as mutually distinct entities, whether or not they interact and to what extent. Islam, on the other hand, looks upon mosque, state and civil society as mutually integral components of a single, organic, overarching entity called Islamic society, to be governed for all time by shari’a law, established by God and therefore not subject to amendment or re-interpretation.)
Even so, it is not at all surprising to see the two equated. For one, the Left tends to downplay differences between religions – to them, all religions are equally suspect. But what’s more, as I’ve noted in the past, our two-party culture tends to funnel all political discourse into one of two discrete camps, so it’s inevitable that the nutcases and other extremists of each camp will end up tarnishing everyone else. That is what I believe we’re seeing here. Leftists know they need a right-wing bogeyman to counterbalance their own pantheon of left-wing bogeymen and bogeywomen (Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan et al). Although Robertson may not be in OBL’s league (someone like Fred Phelps is probably a lot closer to OBL ideologically than Robertson is), to many people he’s still too close for comfort, and so he becomes an easy mark.
January 19th, 2006 at 2:03 pm
The list could go on outlining differences but I think the point is made. Two very dissimilar faiths are being unfairly conflated. (TM Lutas)
Your view of OBL’s “religious beliefs” are probably not far from the truth. I accept that.
But, cast your mind back to the rhetoric that was coming from the likes of Robertson, Falwell, and the extreme right whinger “media commentators” immediately after 9/11. “Nuke ‘em all to hell” was one of the more popular and polite forms of expression.
Dismiss those people as “not representative of Christianity”?
Then how can you say that OBL and the few other extremist mullahs represent the totality of Islam?
Comparing the rights and wrongs of the respective views beyond that might make you feel good. I notice that you don’t mention the death penalty, or indefinite detention without charge or trial, or use of torture, or justification of pornography as “freedom of expression”, as comparative points. No doubt that list could be continued also.
January 19th, 2006 at 2:12 pm
Probligo:
There have been over 4000 terrorist attacks with over 22,000 innocent civilians killed since (but not including) 9/11 in the name of Islam.
source: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com
How many terrorist attacks in the name of Christ do you think have been carried out during the same period?
January 19th, 2006 at 3:51 pm
Jimmy the Dhimmi
How many Moslems have been killed by Christian and Jewish bombs and bullets?
Y’see, war is fought with the weapons to hand. If you have no weapons, there is only bare hands with which to fight. That is where the “terrorist attacks” come from.
Using a M16 or F16 or Predator to deliver death and destruction does not make a blind bit of difference when compared with a man with a bomb strapped to his chest.
Your handle is appropriate…
January 19th, 2006 at 4:10 pm
TM–
Your post holds no weight because I never made the claim that the religious right is akin to Bin Laden and Wahabism.
The problem with your post is that you are equating Wahabism with the government of the Taliban. Correct me if I am wrong, but the two are not one in the same.
The religious right is made up of mostly theocratic christians and thus they are akin to the Taliban in that sense.
January 19th, 2006 at 4:16 pm
Not sure how you know my name, but I presume this post was addressed to me.
My statements really shouldn’t tear you up because in case you’re forgetting, I’m not a Dem so therefore I’m not on your side. From your comments I think I can say that we will disagree on the role of religion in government (one of the reasons why I’m not a democrat), I believe in a strict seperation of church and state and I get that from the obvious fact that the Constitution is a secular document.
January 19th, 2006 at 4:57 pm
Is it any wonder why more people aren’t coming over to the Dem Party? Without any alternative input they constantly criticize a war that is winning victory after victory for Democracy in the Middle East. They also continue to insult people of faith by holding up people like Pat Robertson as their spokesperson. Independants, whether they like Bush or not, can clearly see that evil does exist in the acts of those who would blow themselves up in search of Nirvana with innocent children in range of their suicide bombs. Why try to humnize the fanatics or compare them to Robertson even when we all saw Nick Berg’s scream through his gurgling slashed throat? Why flock to a party that after the fact that they mostly agreed with the decision to go in want to turn tail and run.
I agree with Justin in that within Hackett’s comments lie the answer to the problem with the Dem party today. And I also agree with Jimmy and would ask Probligo not to complain when more atrocities committed by radical Muslims happen here in our country.
January 19th, 2006 at 5:35 pm
“Jewish bombs and bullets”
?????
January 19th, 2006 at 7:41 pm
“Huh? In what way did they come from the same place?”
Both philosphies stemmed from two people. Leo Strauss (Neo Conservatives) and Sayyid Qutb (Radical Islam).
Both had essentially the same problems post WWII with western liberalism and saw it as ultimately a corrosive movement.
Both had essentially the same philosophical ideas on how to return moral values to society. Qutb turned to violence however.
But thats what i meant. They’re both very similar philospohies at their core…both wanting the same end and both came from similar beginnings.
January 19th, 2006 at 9:49 pm
No, that comment wasn’t directed towards you DV. There’s another “rob” who commented just above you in the string. Quite a coinicidence, no?
And to douglas, there are many movements that have a problem with liberalism and returning moral values to society. You could say the same about hundreds of political philosophies around the world. And by the way, Radical Islam isn’t out to point out problems with western liberalism. It’s out to eradicate the western way of life. There’s a BIG difference there.
More detail is needed, otherwise I fear your point is quite flimsy.
January 19th, 2006 at 10:45 pm
probligo:
The fact that you don’t seem to know what my handle actually means accentuates your woeful ignorance of the subject matter at hand.
Look up “dhimmi” in the wikipedia or something, You shouldn’t be suprised if you see your face posted right next to the definition.
January 20th, 2006 at 8:55 am
probligo – I was trapped in Romania post 9/11 so I didn’t catch everything but from what I did see, the nuke ‘em all to hell sentiment was not one that exclusively emanated from right wing christians. There were plenty of less religious folk with the same impulse. As for Robertson/Falwell, I seem to recall them saying that we deserved our lumps for turning away from God. They had to apologize for that stuff too as they were out of step (again) even with the broad current of the hard right.
I don’t think that OBL and the radicals represent the totality of Islam otherwise I’d be screaming for a war of conversion/extermination against Islam. There’d be nobody to dialogue with and it would be madness to follow the Bush strategy in Iraq. The whole Bush WoT policy would be horribly wrong in a world where ObL truly represented Islam.
Your list of similarities doesn’t hold water because either conservative christian beliefs are significantly different from Islamist beliefs or they come to the same position from radically different paths. That’s a very american thing to do and happens all the time in the US.
For example, with the death penalty there are significant differences between Islamist advocacy and right-wing christian justification for the practice. The differences are important. The most recent execution in CA, the guy who got a long prison term and decided it was a good idea for his appeals chances to order three murders from prison, is a good example. In Islamist justice, the guy would have either been pardoned by paying a blood price or would have been executed long before he got around to his subsequent murder plot. Conservative christians tend to be in favor of the death penalty for truly heinous crimes, because the stopping the scale of punishment at a point where the criminal is still capable of committing further crimes leads to an undesirable state, criminals that cannot have further punishments applied to them.
Indefinite detention without charge or trial in the current context of Guantanamo et al is a punishment for violating westphalian rules. Most Islamists are in favor of destroying the westphalian system while most conservative christians are in favor of preserving it because it creates a delineated system of civilians who are immune from combat and reduces bloodshed overall. Again, the two systems don’t believe in the same things.
Now there is something of a commonality in both sides’ views of pornography. The penalties are different but there is a real similarity in revulsion at the practice. For the Islamists it’s just one more thing on a long list of things that should disappear from the world. The christian right views it as degrading and exceeding the limits of a broader tolerance of differences. But frankly if all we had to worry about was the christian/muslim anti-porn common front, we wouldn’t be having problems. The points of actual commonality tend to be in areas where they aren’t really that troublesome. Or are you as wary of anti-porn feminists as you are of anti-porn right-wing christians and anti-porn ObL types?
Now your thoughts on jewish and christian bombs and bullets was just plain uninformed. The key difference between Islamist, Israeli, and the wars of broader Christendom is that for the most part the latter are fought within the customary rules of war and the former are purposefully not. Assaulting those customary rules of war turns back the clock to the days of the Thirty Years War. Read some history and be very afraid. If the customary rules of war break down, we’re all in very deep trouble.
The Disenfranchised Voter – Hit a nerve, did I? If you aren’t standing with Hackett in making those comparisons then my comment wasn’t aimed at you. You don’t have to slime christianity (right or left) to be anywhere on the US political spectrum in terms of policy. Hackett thought he could be a bigot and gain electorally. Bad move. I’m glad you don’t share in his views.
But the rest of your post seems to be rowing back from that commendable portrait. The christian right in the US is not generally theocratic. It wants a sort of baseline level of faith to inform the public square and influence it but real theocracy? The christian right is far too fractured for that to be a realistic policy option and all the sub-factions know it.
Now the Taliban and Wahabbi cleric radicals are not the same. The Taliban aren’t arab bigots for example. They do share real commonalities though including a commitment to abrasive sharia practices and a commitment to convert the world to Islam without any commitment to do it peacefully. Those two are enough right there to put them in the same boat as far as the current war is concerned. Right now we’re just going “nice doggie” with the Saudis because we haven’t found the right stick yet.
douglas – While neoconservatives and the religious right share places in the same coalition, they are not the same. Conservative christians do not tend to be straussians. Their ideas revolve around another figure, Jesus Christ.
January 20th, 2006 at 9:47 am
I think you got DV’s quote and mine mixed up.
Me:
DV:
You:
January 20th, 2006 at 12:28 pm
Nope, it was still directed at you Rob. I took DV’s quote and lamented to nobody in particular and THEN directed the comment at you to illustrate the problem the left-wing has with attracting new voters given the current rhetorical climate.
I know it was confusing, but it felt like we were still all in the same room…so to speak. DV says “blahblah American Taliban blahblah”, and I look over to you and say, “and you wonder…”
Hope that clears it up. Sorry for the confusion.
January 20th, 2006 at 1:29 pm
The main point to Hackett’s comment is the attempt to make this war about religion. I like the last comment you made TM because it has been a trap, historically and currently, to fall into a justification for protecting our country, lifestyle, and ideals being justification by Christ. As Christian who will vote for ideas, not just who whines the best, I find it amusing, but frustrating, that Robertson was never given any credence or protrayed as a person of any power until he made an ass of himself. Then suddenly he is a spokesperson for all people of my ilk and we are to be marginalized and demonized by comparing us to OBL. Next, let’s make all Christians sit at the back of the buses!
January 20th, 2006 at 4:12 pm
Even though I understand how extreme Hackett’s comment was. I actually have a theory that is similar to his. Christians and Muslims, as a whole, are not bad. I respect everyone’s right to practice any religion he or she chooses. However, I believe there are people, who “belong” to each group, who are extremists and are dangerous. However, I absolutely disapprove of the term “wacko,” as the correct term is “wack-a-doo.”
Seriously though, there are extremists in both religions, and I think they are similar in a lot of ways, although so far, we don’t have Christian “wack-a-doos” murdering or terrorizing anyone. But, they are dangerous, and partly because of the attention and power that they are given by our politicians who pander to them. If we just laughed at them (i.e. – Pat Robertson) for being so “wack-a-dooish,” and if politicians did the same, they would pose absolutely no threat. I can’t say the same for muslim “wack-a doos.”
January 20th, 2006 at 4:55 pm
I’m not interested in sugar coating my words to get people to agree with my side.
I speak my mind. BTW, since when are libertarians categorized as left-wing?
LOL.
January 20th, 2006 at 4:57 pm
In closing I should note that I overlooked that Hackett was comparing the religious right with Bin Laden. I thought he was equating them to the Taliban.
Equating them to Bin Laden and his ilk is wrong. I mean the religious right is bad but they aren’t that bad.
January 20th, 2006 at 7:58 pm
OK, I get it.
It may be that he loses votes over this. But, to ME the biggest threat to democracy is the religious right. They seem to think their job in life is passing laws to stop other people from doing things THEY don’t want to do.
I need to remember that it is getting better. It used to be you couldn’t shop on Sundays.
January 20th, 2006 at 10:00 pm
rob – I have had a lot more loss of freedom in my life from the nanny left than the blue stocking right, YMMV. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for me to see the left censors as the bigger threat and I grant that your experience may very well be the other way around. If we’re both reasonable we can live with the difference in our politics informed by our different personal experience. What we have to be united in is policing against the nutters, the guys who would split apart our polity and dehumanize our fellow citizens in order to gain power. Calling conservative christians “Taliban” and likening them to the mass murdering Osama bin Laden is just not right and needs to be banished from polite political discourse. The reasons for this are many but not least of which is that it’s just not true and we should understand our fellow americans enough so that we can make informed judgments.
January 20th, 2006 at 11:04 pm
TM Lutas – What exactly have the “left censors” done?
Things the religious right try to do off the top of my head:
Deny evolution
Stem cell research
Ban books from libraries
Prayer in school
Discrimination against gays
Discrimination against women
Dry counties
Sex education
TV Censorship (Can their TV’s change channels ?)
Terri Schiavo
Drug regulation (wasting 50B/year w/no results)
General hate towards anyone not in their sect
Environmental destruction
Pro death penalty (how is this possible?!?)
Fear and loathing of anything remotely sexual
This list took about 5 minutes to come up with. How can one group get it wrong on every issue?
Not to mention once my Grandma got old and a little senile MANY “religious” groups started bilking her out of her money. The whole thing looks like a scam to me.
January 21st, 2006 at 4:05 am
Thanks for the amendment, but the religious right isn’t anywhere close to being as bad as the Taliban. Not even clost. When they were around, they were THE most oppressive religious regime in the world. And any country that would harbor a guy like OBL after 9/11 is just as bad as the man himself. I’m sorry, but the comparison is still nowhere close to apt because the Taliban IS like Bin Laden and his ilk.
I disagree with the first part, but definitely agree with the second part. The religious right loves democracy because it affords them the opportunity to do exactly what you say they’re doing. But trust me, I understand the fear. However, I think diversity of opinion in this country is what makes us a great democracy. Look around the world. All democracies have a “religious right” component to them…some more effective and pervasive than others. And by the way, I think they’ll probably always will. But it’s up to liberals to keep working vigorously for more freedoms for the individual. Obviously, we can never let that fire die out.
But let me ask you something rob. Do you think it’s more effective to get those freedoms by calling the religious right “wackos” or by listening to their views, respecting their opinion and attempting to explain how liberalism is actually more in line with the teachings of Jesus? Obviously, I certainly think it’s the latter.
Well, people who would willing bilk somebody out of their money are obviously not following the teachings of Jesus. They’re crooks and scammers. But that doesn’t mean the entire religious right is like that. In fact, the vast majority aren’t like that.
But I do agree with the death penalty issue. That doesn’t make any sense to me. But hating anybody who isn’t in their sect? Well, that’s certainly a very clumsy generalization.
January 21st, 2006 at 12:56 pm
That was in response to TM who said the nanny left is more dangerous to democracy than the religious right. Is that what you are disagreeing to?
diveristiy of opinion is fine. My problem is the religious right not only has an opinion, they want to force it on other people. If you don’t like something on TV change the channel, don’t try to get it taken off.
OK that wasn’t very well written. But from a group that should be teaching love, tolerance and acceptance; I see intolerance and hate.
Back you your origianl point as a politician he (Hackett) should watch that kind of talk, if his only objective is to get elected. But I have nothing to do with politics, and I am going to say something that is probably not very popular, but it is how I feel. Religion is wacky. How can otherwise reasonable people, honestly believe anything written in the bible? Do you really believe there is an invisible man in the sky that loves us so much that he will give us small illogical clues to his existance, but if we don’t believe he will burn us alive for the rest of eternity. I think it is pretty obvious that people are scared of dying, and have made up the myth of heaven to make themselves feel better, most cultures do this.
January 21st, 2006 at 12:57 pm
I didn’t mean to bold the above. Not sure what I did.
January 21st, 2006 at 1:09 pm
I hope you are right, but I don’t think so.
I wouldn’t want to waste $10K-$20K, but I think if you gave $1000 to a couple of television preachers, and sounded obviously old and infirm when you did it, within a month they and others would have it all.
After my GM gave to one or two of the TV preachers, she started getting calls from others, they must communicate between themselves. Luckily my mom found out and stopped the fleecing, before very much was gone, but I think it was a good lesson.
Watch the 700 Club and tell me again the VAST majority isn’t like that. Pat Robertson actually chats with God regularly; either he is a charlotan, or psychotic. If you have read about his mining operations in Liberia you would probably think it was the former.
January 22nd, 2006 at 12:20 am
TM–
Since you think the religious right isn’t a powerful threat to our Constitution and that Republicans have no problem violating our Constitution in order to pander to them, I have two words for you to reflect on:
Terri Schiavo.
January 22nd, 2006 at 1:11 pm
I can’t believe how long this thread is with people actually arguing that Evangelical christians in America pose more of a threat to our constitution than Islamic fascists who want to replace it with sharia.
January 23rd, 2006 at 8:29 pm
Well that’s because you’re a god damn moron Jimmy.
You seem to be forgetting that the religious right has about 100 times more political power in America than jihadists.
The religious right can vote in droves. Are you honestly ignorant enough to claim that the country has to worry about jihadists inflitrating our eletoral process?
I wouldn’t be surprised.
January 24th, 2006 at 10:05 am
“You seem to be forgetting that the religious right has about 100 times more political power in America than jihadists”
If you were in charge of this country, I would give it 10 years before a city gets nuked by jihadists. Then I would expect a Dhimmi like you to “pay tribute out of hand until [you] are utterly subdued.” (koran 9:29)
January 24th, 2006 at 11:14 am
P.S., how does one do a block-quote here?
January 24th, 2006 at 3:28 pm
I can’t type the characters or it will blockquote and not show you what to do, so here goes.
type a:
LEFT BRACKET (above the comma) blockquote RIGHT BRACKET
Then what you want to quote.
LEFT BRACKET /blockquote RIGHT BRACKET
January 24th, 2006 at 3:48 pm
January 24th, 2006 at 7:10 pm
Thanks rob.
January 24th, 2006 at 7:47 pm
Rob, I haven’t checked the threads at this site for a little bit but wanted to comment on your Jan 20 & Jan 21 replies:
First of all, some of the items are true of the religious right, but not by a pervasive consensus. Such as denying evolution, discrimination against gays, sex education, or fear and loathing of anything remotely sexual & Terri Schiavo. My point continues to go back to the lens you choose to look through and what is getting your attention. If you choose to watch the 700 Club with the idea that everyone who votes their values and is Christian must be just like Pat Robertson, you have a very sad and inaccurate picture of us. Christians make the same mistake when they watch Springer and think that represents all the unchurched people in America. Or watching Ted Kennedy slinging lies about Alito at the confirmation hearings and assuming all libs are just as despicable. Or watching Nagin’s responses in New Orleans and generalizing his chocolate, don’t-let-the-uppity-whites-come-back dream to the dream of many minorities to be judged on the basis of their character. It just isn’t fair.
Next, I will unequivically deny your assertions that the religious right would have in its group anything more than a small minority that supports discrimnation towards women & environmental distruction. Additionally, to clarify an opposition to stem cell research, its least promising form, found to cause cancer in lab tests, is embryonic stem cell research. And the opposition is to the government funding of the practice. If it were so promising, why can’t it be funded privately?
Lastly, your most accurate characterization was that there has been a push for censorship on books, TV, radio, you name it. At times, especially on the book banning, this was done in a shameless Putian style. However, despite all their efforts, please tune into network TV, the kind that is broadcast to any person, despite their values, without a purchase by that person. Now imagine that you want to enjoy this free service with your 8 year old without sending the child constant messages of drugs, adultry, lying, killing, etc.. It used to be that the free airwaves were shared to respect those who wanted to enjoy this form of entertainment with their family. Now, it just simply isn’t offered. See, dismissing the need for some forms of censorship isn’t just about changing the channel, it’s also about respecting that just because sex and violence sells, doesn’t mean not that it should be readily available as much as it always is.
January 24th, 2006 at 9:39 pm
Yikes!
There is also an off switch on that TV. If your kids can’t take a day without TV, you’re going to have to shell out $30 for cable, then set it up so they can only get NICK. You can watch Spongebob and Jimmy Neutron 24 hrs a day.
Hey, I don’t want my kids stumbling on the TV preachers on Sunday morning, but I don’t call to have is censored.
So you don’t think Pat Robertson is a good example? Well how about naming a couple of good examples from the religious right. Ralph Reed, Tom Delay, Dobson, Falwell, Schlafly, Roy Moore, John Ashcroft.
So you have no problem with no censorship of cable and satellite? If over the air was censored and cable free of all regulation, I gaurantee over the air would be dead in a year.
I’m going to have to disagree with you here. The republicans did a very fine job of getting same sex marriage issues on the ballot to bring out the vote. Here in Ohio, thanks to Blackwell, they passed some sort of “save marriage” law. He appeals strickly to the religous right.
Do you really believe this? Who do you think it is then? The RR want women to obey their men, stay home and have babies. All you church goers were out there for the ERA? I don’t think so. Well, the Unitarians, but you don’t really count them do you?
If you vote republican you have to take the blame for the environment. Who else could come up with something like the clear sky initiative?
I’m not even going to get in to your comments about Ted Kennedy. You only prove my point.
And guess what, those “people” on Springer, if they vote at all, they vote republican. Why? Well, to get the death taxed revoked, and so Bush can kick so Turrist azz, and because Rush told them to, and he makes them feel important.
I’m just feed up with the moralizing from the RR. All the money and time that goes to churches; what if instead of building churches everywhere you look, that money went to something useful, like feeding hungry children, or birth control /HIV in the third world. Don’t kid yourself, the godless left probably does more to help the more unfortunate than the sanctimonious right.
PS – Justin how about adding a preview (like John Cole), and while I’m wishing, a spell checker, my spelling sucks.
January 24th, 2006 at 9:41 pm
Once again, I don’t know why that is bolded in the middle.
And believe it or not I went through the post and deleted the more snarkey parts before I submited it.
January 24th, 2006 at 10:22 pm
I added that, but it broke the comments.
January 26th, 2006 at 10:47 pm
Rob,
I cannot comment on on all of your responses, and this thread has gotten ridicoulous, but I will only say a few more things:
No, I don’t have a problem with no censorship of pay channels. I believe in free markets with less government interferrence whenever possible. I know that I seem to contradict what you may percieve the RR to be in your mind, but that’s what my point has been over and over. We’re not all off our rockers, in fact MOST of us are pretty sensible, but the propaganda easily finds those who will marginalize our credibility among rational thinkers.
I do think that some restrictions on free TV and none on pay will not guarantee the collapse of free TV. Radio has always had the FCC looking over its shoulder and is still strong. As a cyclist, do I avoid riding through the states with helmet restrictions? Better yet, as a smoker, do I not frequent non-smoking establishments? Why would those laws exist? The answer is to protect the innocent. I may not like it, but the point is that these type of restrictions to personal liberties are all around us and it doesn’t guarantee a collapse of the industry it affects in any way.
And the republican record in rights for women and environmental protection is an issue that I stand by and I have done my research going all the way back to the progressive movement of the early 1900’s. But I bet your predessessors were too busy focusing on the audacity of Carrie Nation and her self righteous campaign – thinking that represented all women of faith – to even notice. I will admit that our current approaches to how best to protect the environment is different. I could actually bore you with a thesis on the many fallacies to the common man’s understanding of the issue, but that would take too long.
Back to your view on all things Christian. It seems that you have had some bad experiences with televangelists, politicians who talk about God but a jsut as slimey as the next guy, heck maybe you’re even still upset about the crusades. But don’t disregard all the positive medical, humanitarian, and educational contributions that the set of values has brought to the world. Organizations that I would imagine you support like 75% of our hospitals, Universities, the Red Cross, YMCA & YWCA, just to name a few. You sight the ugly ducklings and let that form your opinion. We are not dangerous, we are a culture who will vote to protect that culture. One other entity born from religious reasons – USA. It’s not a State free FROM religion it’s a state with freedom OF religion.
“The church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society.”
Martin Luther King Jr., Letter from Birmingham Jail, April 1963
January 26th, 2006 at 11:12 pm
Just to let you know that I did read it.
But you are right this thread has gone on too long.
We just disagree. That happens. I think religion is a drain on society, you feel it power of good, and gives you a moral base.
January 29th, 2006 at 4:37 am
I thought he was hope for the future of the Democratic Party, I had invited him on the program several times. And the lack of professionalism of his staff and unwillingness to committ was staggering.
what a waste of potential, he was kind of like the Wesley Clark of the future.
Oh well