As "This Week in God" settles in on Saturday mornings, the God Machine has plenty to offer again this week.
First up is a look back, now that the race for the Republican presidential nomination is over, at all the candidates who seemed rather certain that their campaigns were the result of divine inspiration. Herman Cain, for example, said a year ago that God told him in 2006, "I've got something else for you to do." He was referring, of course, to running for president. Similarly, Rick Santorum said of his campaign, "We believe with all our hearts that this is what God wants." Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry made similar comments.
It led Dan Amira to make an amusing observation. (thanks to reader R.P. for the tip)
The end -- sorry, um, suspension -- of Rick Santorum's presidential campaign is a major milestone in the primary race, clearing the way, as it does, for Mitt Romney to cruise here on out to the nomination essentially unchallenged.
But Santorum's withdrawal is also a major milestone for God, the beloved all-powerful deity whose personal endorsement somehow failed to secure the nomination for any of the numerous Republicans -- Santorum, Herman Cain, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Perry -- whom he reportedly encouraged to run for president. It is unclear at this point whether God will even bother to offer anyone his apparently useless endorsement in the general election.
For the record, Mitt Romney was one of the only competitive Republican candidates who didn't say God inspired and/or motivated his campaign, and he won by a wide margin.
Also from the God Machine this week:
* In the wake of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan's (R-Wis.) assertion that his right-wing budget plan was shaped by his Catholic faith, nearly 60 prominent theologians, priests, nuns, and national Catholic social justice leaders released a statement yesterday rejecting the claim. "If Rep. Ryan thinks a budget that takes food and healthcare away from millions of vulnerable people upholds Catholic values, then he also probably believes Jesus was a Tea Partier who lectured the poor to stop being so lazy and work harder," said John Gehring, Catholic Outreach Coordinator at Faith in Public Life. "This budget turns centuries of Catholic social teaching on its head. These Catholic leaders and many Catholics in the pews are tired of faith being misused to bless an immoral agenda."
* The nation's Roman Catholic bishops issued a proclamation on Thursday, warning that religious liberty is "under attack, both at home and abroad." It's not just about contraception -- the bishops also noted several state immigration laws that make it illegal to care for undocumented immigrants.
* The anti-gay Truth in Action Ministries noted the anniversary of the Titanic disaster by producing an unintentionally-funny video, comparing the LGBT "lifestyle" with icebergs.
* And finally, Pat Robertson, demon hunter.
Leave a Comment:
If Repubs and religious right leaders do not think that American middle class families have enough children, I have an idea-- see to it that wages go up enough to support more kids.
Taking away birth control and abortion will result in more poverty not more well educated middle class kids for business to hire at starvation wages.
That would defeat the purpose they need more poor children in order to populate their newly revamped prison system. We need more people addicted to drugs in order to incite more criminal activity. When they are through using poor people for that purpose they let them get sick and die because they have no healthcare. We also let them eat the cheapest food there is ammonia laced ground beef. We can do this because they are not the same as us. There could be a number of reasons why they are different. women, black, muslim, poor....take your pick. Where are the addictive drugs coming from? Who is selling the drugs who are manufacturing the drugs . Who can help cure addiction. The prison system...no, there are more drugs in prison then there is on the outside. What support groups or free groups can help? Are these the same groups that the GOP are cutting funding for?
They need more poor children in order to populate the...prison system
Statistically that is correct. The decline in urban crime began some 18 years after Roe v Wade. The unwanted children who grow up to be criminals are the ones aborted.
Steve!! I could not have put it a better way!! Awesome comment!!
Covah, you refer to the Donohue-Levitt hypothesis, which is described (among other places) at wikipedia, in articles at Slate.com, and in a chapter of the first Freakonomics book. There were some criticisms of this hypothesis, but Levitt supports it pretty well, responding to the most interesting criticism at the link above.
I think it is about time that the Catholic Church, and other religious organizations, started voicing their opposition and disdain at being used by political argument, in this case the Ryan Budget. I guess this is what eventually happens when you get in bed with a strange bedfellow.
I'm not very pro-Catholic but I am glad to see them stand up against social injustice. It reminds me of the old days (1960's) when Catholics actually seemed to have a moral compass.
It's possible you might be reading too much into some little tidbit that I've overlooked, but there is a years long history of the Catholic Church getting deeper in bed with the GOP. In order to stave off declining relevance, The One True Church has eschewed their 1960s flirtation with liberalism and social justice. Starting in the 1980s, they marginalized the Liberation Theology supporters in the church, and so far as one can tell, the movement is moribund. The Church today is rather closely in alignment with the women-as-chattel philosophy of the evangelical protestant sects, which of course were simply preserving these values from pre-schism. So, I really have no idea what you're talking about, but you're either wrong, or, as the physicists would say, "not even wrong" (e.g. the question is poorly formed).
I am glad to see them stand up against social injustice.
I do not see many Catholics stand up against social injustice. They probably are, but are drowned out by the screaming right-wing moral elitists who despise secular government. That is a shame for the Catholic church which is being disgraced by a handful of corporate stooges.
The Church today is rather closely in alignment with the women-as-chattel philosophy of the evangelical protestant sects
Religious institutions are being baited into attacking secular government by the Republican Party.
Actually, maybe "GOD" DID tell Bachmann, Santorum, Cain, and Perry to run. Maybe "GOD" thought that that since these people weren't listening to "GOD" telling them their views were SO WRONG, maybe they'd listen if millions of people told them they were so wrong.
If "GOD" tells you to run and you don't win, I think "GOD" is trying to tell you something!!!!
God also led a good Christian black man to run for president, and he won.
Or else God has one heck of a sense of humor. I can just see him/her doubled over with laughter while saying, "Wow! They thought I meant it when I told them to run. There is one born every day, isn't there."
That's freaking hilarious. You should sell that to Bill Maher.
So does God tell people to do these things and later jibe "psych!" when it doesn't work out? (Kind of like the Abraham/Isaac story, remember?) Cruel and fickle.
Were we given free will, only to have God come in and mess with us from time to time, or are we powerless puppets? When bad things happen (like being trounced at elections), is it because God couldn't manipulate enough people or circumstances at once to make things happen the way he wanted? Or because he changed his mind?
Hmm. I vote for free thought, free will, and rational secular governance.
God told me she said no such thing to any of those bozos. That it was only their ambitions rattling in their otherwise empty skulls.
Okay so God told all of these fine Christians to run for president but He gives the nomination to a Morman. That's fine, whatever'n'ever. My question is, if He wants Romney to be POTUS, pray tell, what about FLOTUS? Would it be First Sister Wife of the United States, Second Sister Wife of the United States, Third Sister Wife of the United States, Fourth... ?
Just as Flip-AKA Geraldine Jones- (the devil made me do it") Wilson had a convenient excuse for his misbehavior, so too do politicians and theologians of every stripe. I speak, of course of The Deity, Mister "Mysterious Ways" himself.
Caught acting gay? Boffing prostitutes? Deciding to run for office? God is handy cover for all occasions!
And in Seattle this weekend we have THIS to look forward to (in addition to those pesky Democratic Caucuses...
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/text/2017978133.html
Several priests shut church door to petitions to block gay marriage
If asked, what do you think President Obama would say to this question: Did the God of your faith have a part in your being President today? I think he would answer: yes. Most people of faith seek guidance from their faith and from their God. To say I believe God has led me to run for president is NOT the same as saying I think God wants me to be President. Why is that so difficult to understand?
Most people of faith will say you learn more in the journey of life than from any of life's "successes." There are many times I've felt God leadership and it did not turn out the way I would have thought or even planned but I still felt God used it to teach me.
I would think President Obama would say he prayed about running for office before making the decision to do so, and that he felt confirmation that it was the right thing to do as a result of those prayers.
Where am I wrong and why is this so difficult to understand?
PS - don't say well President Obama isn't talking about it, that's the difference. So it's okay to seek God's guidance, just don't tell others that you are doing so? Also, this is not the criticism leveled, that is that these people shouldn't be talking about their faith.
Are there different Gods for each different faith? Poor God whoever it is!
Where you are wrong is that 'praying for guidance' is one thing. ANNOUNCING that GOD wants you to be President is another. Implicit with the GOP announcing that they had been TOLD to run, was that the 'godless' Democrats had NO ONE on their side. ESPECIALLY in this time when each one of those 'candidates' had 'questions' on Obama's faith. Whether they thought he was a Muslim or they thought he was a black evangelical, they DIDN'T think he was a 'true Christian'...
People in public office need to shut up about their faith. No one wants to hear it. It does not belong in government. "True Christians" are really not good people they are hypocrits.
For the most part I can understand your sentiments RD. However many GOP candidates did not say that their faith in God and much soul searching lead them to believe in running- many said specifically, word for word, that God told them to run. And yes I agree that the two are dramatically different. One implies a deep, well thought out process of soul searching and interpersonal guidance. It implies discussing the endeavors w/ one's family and w/ trust friends and w/ political advisers and on and on. The other, however, suggests a schizophrenic who is hearing voices. I have no problem w/ a candidate who says that their faith in God has lead them to where they are. I do have a problem w/ a candidate who says God told them to do X. If the former were all that went on then yeah I'd be in agreement w/ you.
On a slightly more sarcastic note:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DItRsujlgU&context=C4120f1eADvjVQa1PpcFMOppN1lzvCHSoJIVLXvw6NxCJUgSEz_oo=
Mego, did you read my post? I said the same thing.
newsblog, I can appreciate your opinion.
Some faith do not think their God is the same as other faiths. I was simply being respectful of that belief. Sorry if it confused you.
While I understand this, I would point out that those relying on the Bible have accounts that God has audibly spoken to people and accounts where a follower felt directed to do a specific act.
On the other hand, I can be certain of something God is saying without hearing an audible voice. Just to make the point from a Christian perspective (and not to start an argument or other discussion), the Gospel of John says, "...the Word became flesh and dwelt among us..." meaning Jesus. Thus, his life speaks to his followers.
But, I do understand what you are saying. Someone feeling led by God sounds much different than someone saying, "God told me to...".
Well I would respond to your statement about instances of God speaking directly to people in the Bible w/ what Jehovah's Witnesses' believe and that is God has no reason to talk to people directly in modern times. He did during the biblical days, but he does not now. But it is a fair point. Inherently speaking I don't have any problems w/ someone expressing their faith or having faith. I think for many people faith is a good thing and can be the source of positive action. The only time I get disturbed is when people use faith to abuse others or justify things that otherwise are completely illogical. I suppose that's where my inherent distrust of someone saying "God told me to..." comes from. Because usually speaking when that sentence is uttered good things don't happen as a result.
@RobDon,
Anyone that says anything that begins "God told me ..." makes me think of this.
I will NEVER vote for any politician that is so desperate for votes that they drag God into an election so they can pander to mentally ill voters.
That corresponds to about 50 million votes.
Click the link for the reference.
It is just wrong to do that.
I think Romney understands this concept, but he is not as unethical as Santorum.
I agree...I really don't like "God told me..." as a general rule. I don't, however, view those of faith as "mentally ill," seems a bit extreme regarding something with which you don't agree, but to each his own.
I'm not the one confused. I was taught that there is only one God. I am amazed to find that religions parcel God up like a beef to the butcher. Geez, what a lot of non-sense. That's why I say, "poor God."
I did not say religious people are mentally ill or vice versa. That is simply not true.
I did say mentally ill people have more vidid religious delusions. That is a fact.
I also said that most people are mentally ill during the year (temporary disability).
Psychologists and substance abuse councelors advise people to pursue religion in order to encourage them to develop better rational thinking that may be unaffordable for the mentally ill without weekly church meetings.
Ministers and priests often succeed when psychiatrists fail.
I'm glad you agree that mental illness is a HUGE gullible voter demographic, and that it is unethical to exploit these people for votes by invoking God.
I was too. But, Hinduism and Buddhism are examples of two religions that embrace polytheism (more than one god).
Thanks all for the dialog and comments!
There is a difference between praying for guidance (whether it's public knowledge you're doing so or not) and publically announcing your god has revealed his will to you. Especially when the god they're claiming spoke to them in such detail is the one of whom is said, "No one knows the Son but the Father, and no one knows the Father but the Son." Apart from being trite and childish to justify a run for national office on the equivalent of "But my Daddy said so and if you don't like it you're wrong!" it's walking on the edge of blasphemy.
Jennifer Kennedy Cassidy said the radical homosexual agenda was "dulling our sense of righteousness". Good, no one is righteous. Psalms 143:2 "in God's sight, no one living is righteous'. 1 John 3:10 "Whoever does not practice righteousness is not of God nor is he who does not love his brother" It is time for these so called righteous people to put up or shut up. Bigotry is destructive , bigotry in God's name is evil.
Pat Robertson should be on Comedy Central.
In case you did'nt know,Pat Robertson has God's cell phone no.
"The will of God prevails. In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be wrong. God can not be for, and against the same thing at the same time. In the present civil war it is quite possible that God's purpose is something different from the purpose of either party--and yet the human instrumentality, working just as they do, are of the best adaptation to effect His purpose." --Abraham Lincoln, 1862
It's an amusing thought, that it was God's will that Cain, Bachmann, Perry and Santorum run for president...but not for the reason they all thought. "Your ideas about me are completely asinine and idiotic," God may have thought, "so let's have you all run for president in my name and demonstrate to the world just how asinine and idiotic people like you truly are. Let's see how that works out for you. Let there be popcorn!"
Both parties pander to God because there are about 50 million mentally ill voters, which brings up this topic.
Dude don't even try to be equating the entire mentally ill populace with schizophrenics. That's @!$%#in' offensive. Not to mention that depressed people have been found to have a more realistic (read: not rosy colored) assessment of their circumstances than the perky people telling them there's lots worth living for.
there's a new, very interesting, study from professors at the university of akron and the university of southern california on how the media covers religion and what the public thinks of the coverage
one of the disconnects between the two groups is found in the answer to this question: "In your opinion, is religion more a force for good or more a source of conflict in today's world?"
The Public:
More a force for good 52.6
A mix of good and conflict 3.8
More a source of conflict 43.6
Reporters:
More a force for good 24.6
A mix of good and conflict 56.1
More a source of conflict 19.3
link to pdf : http://annenberg.usc.edu/~/media/PDFs/winston-bliss.ashx
I say the source of all evil!
Reporters are far better educated than the general public. The general public knows very little at all.
@ covah
from the report: "Only a fifth of reporters say they are “very knowledgeable” about religion, and most of these are mainly familiar with their own religious traditions, not the wider array of faiths and practices."
the report's conclusion about the different ways the two groups answer the question i noted above was that religious people see more black and white while the press sees more nuance
Journalists also have agendas. Most entered the field "to make a difference." Most allow their views to sway their story. IMHO
Only a fifth of reporters say they are "very knowledgeable" about religion
Because they are honest and know their limits. The general public knows much less and is too dumb to know how little they know. Surveys show atheists more knowledgeable than the devout on religion.
@Russell Leisenheimer,
Agree.
About 50 million voters are mentally ill, and "God" provides the path of least intellectual resistance for complicated decisions, like voting.
That is the whole point of the "separation between church and state" listed in the constitution.
ffs.
Perhaps they were wrong when they thought it was God telling them to make a run for president. Maybe it was Satan- just ask Pat Robertson!
Just wanted to say thank you, Steve. I always look forward to your Sat. updates of "This Week in God."
Ditto.
Likewise!!!
Can you imagine how much better a country this would be if the catholic church spent as much time on getting their Republican pawns to concentrate on poverty as they get them to spend on fighting contraception and gay marriages?
As someone on the Right, I agree. I wish the Church (not just Catholic) would spend more time on grace, mercy, love, etc...than on politics and judgment. I agree.
Sure would be a step in the "right" direction.
Cute, Joy.
Made me curious as to the origin of "right" and "left" in politics. Several different sites source it to the French assembly during the French Revolution. We got it from the French, go figure.
Demon Hunter? No, no, Pat Robertson, you're not a demon hunter.
http://us.battle.net/d3/en/class/demon-hunter/
THIS, Pat Robertson, is a demon hunter.
These Catholic leaders and many Catholics in the pews are tired of faith being misused to bless an immoral agenda.
Indeed. It is sickening to watch Republicans bait Catholics on Democrats for political gain and Catholics and their stooges play right along.
Catholics have always been suspect in civil society for putting the Pope in Rome ahead of the secular government. Even John Kennedy had to address this exact concern. Now, America-hating Republicans say putting the Pope ahead of the illegitimate constitutional republic is the correct moral position. And of course Catholics agree, showing their true colors. What a disgrace.
If they don't accept the authority of Church hierarchy--as their own doctrine says they MUST--get the hell out of the Church. Otherwise shut up and obey the proclamations of your leaders. I really have little sympathy for those who complain "This isn't my Catholicism!" when actually it IS and they never bothered to read what they signed up for. I disagreed so I left. If they disagree then they should @!$%#ing do something about it besides whine that a religion with very clear, very rigid infrastructure that excludes the laity from any part in discerning doctrinal positions isn't bending to their lay will on positions of doctrine.
I see Rachel Maddow appeared with Bill Maher this past Tuesday for a special event in Los Angeles. Judging from the snippet of her describing her time with Maher, she was clearly pretty excited to be with him and - in her words - she could 'talk to him all night.'
Let's get a rundown on some of Bill Maher's wonderful comments from left-leaning columnist, Kirsten Powers, who wrote this in early March - shall we?
"But the grand pooh-bah of media misogyny is without a doubt Bill Maher—who also happens to be a favorite of liberals—who has given $1 million to President Obama’s super PAC. Maher has called Palin a “dumb twat” and dropped the C-word in describing the former Alaska governor. He called Palin and Congresswoman Bachmann “boobs” and “two bimbos.” He said of the former vice-presidential candidate, “She is not a mean girl. She is a crazy girl with mean ideas.” He recently made a joke about Rick Santorum’s wife using a vibrator. Imagine now the same joke during the 2008 primary with Michelle Obama’s name in it, and tell me that he would still have a job. Maher said of a woman who was harassed while breast-feeding at an Applebee’s, “Don't show me your tits!” as though a woman feeding her child is trying to flash Maher. (Here’s a way to solve his problem: don’t stare at a strangers’ breasts). Then, his coup de grâce: “And by the way, there is a place where breasts and food do go together. It’s called Hooters!”
Liberals—you know, the people who say they “fight for women”—comprise Maher’s audience, and a parade of high-profile liberals make up his guest list. Yet have any of them confronted him? Nope. That was left to Ann Coulter, who actually called Maher a misogynist to his face, an opportunity that feminist icon Gloria Steinem failed to take when she appeared on his show in 2011." (Kirsten Powers, 3/4/12)
Steve, please feel free to file this under 'This Week In Secularism'....or 'This Week In Leftist Hypocrisy'......or 'This Week In Faux Outrage Over The War On Women'.....
Bill Maher is not running for office! He's a satirist and at his worst still better than Rush Limbaugh!
Oh...OK...'a satirist'...gotcha.
I guess that frees Maher up to be vulgar and vile towards women anytime.
Thanks for clearing that up for me....
John for the last time secularism =/= atheism. It means neutral.
Nobody is saying that secularism equal atheism - but if it'll make you happy, Mouzer, let's call it 'This Week In Non-God'....
http://townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/2012/01/31/they_have_islamist_fanatics_we_have_secularist_fanatics/page/full/
A superb column about secular fanaticism from Dennis Prager.....
I think John is making a valid point. Maher has used gender based derogatory terms to attack women on the Right in a manner Ms. Maddow would strongly condemn and address with the offender if done from the Right towards the Left. I don't think this can be factually disputed.
Maher has used gender based derogatory terms to attack women...
We see the right-wing mind confusing its lies, excusing Republican War on Women with foul-mouthed late-night comedians. Again, Maher is NOT a politician. Republican politicians denigrate women.
You can say Limbaugh is not a politician either but so what, if you attack Maher we can attack Limbaugh, YOU make Limbaugh fair game. Let's see RobDon or John point out examples of Democrats who denigrate women.
I don't personally like Maher because he's an ass and says lots of things I don't agree w/. I do, however, think that there's a huge difference between Maher and Limbaugh and the two of them and an elected politician. Republican politicians say derogatory things about women or gays or even sometimes blacks quite frequently and that to me is unacceptable. In the case of Limbaugh he actually is advertised as a talk news host and he actually has considerable influence over what the Republican Party does and in particular what other conservative people talk about which then influences the overall conversation on the right. This is wildly different from Bill Maher who's just a jackass on HBO.
A superb column about secular fanaticism from Dennis Prager...
Filled with his usual America-hating filth and lies. "Secular fanaticism" is code for the revolutionary spirit that overthrew the "King of Great Britain" as he is called in the Declaration of Independence, a king who rules by the grace of God. Attacking "secular fanaticism" is attacking the Constitution of the United States which Prager hates with a passion.
Cranston High School West banner: "Our Heavenly Father..." What a contemptible mockery of everything this country stands for! It spits in the face of those Patriots who fought and died to create this nation. "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God... they are endowed by their Creator" are sacrilege to those who believe in the divine right of kings and seek to overthrow the constitutional republic that occupies the British North American colonies.
Maher appears often on many MSNBC weekday evening shows - and he has appeared on ABC's Sunday morning news show (If he's been on Meet The Press, I've yet to see him). He's clearly not regulated to HBO land....
On every one of those shows, he hasn't been asked to 'be a comedian;' he's been asked serious questions on substantive issues. The hosts want his perspective.
Like the viewpoints of others on this thread, I don't believe his worldview is sought after by Democratic leaders in government - but it's absurd for the Debbie Wasserman Shultzs and Rachel Maddows of the world to decry this supposed 'War On Women' by the right - and then gladly appear on Maher's television show or on stage with the man.
It's why many of us hold the perspective that the 'War On Women' is nothing but pure political nonsense.
it's absurd for the Debbie Wasserman Shultzs and Rachel Maddows of the world to decry this supposed 'War On Women' by the right - and then gladly appear on Maher's television show or on stage with the man
John continues to fail to keep his lies straight. Debbie Wasserman-Shultz is a politician. Has she attacked women's rights? Yes or no.
Maddow and Maher are NOT politicians. Please feel free to address their criticisms.
The problem is John is not smart enough to separate the two groups, the groups being a late-night profane comedian and mainstream Republican politicians.
But where does the War on Women come from John? It comes from the policies being passed. It doesn't come from opinions it comes from actual governance. That's one thing to say OK Maddow is somewhat hypocritical getting upset over certain words used by one commentator, but not another commentator. But it's an entirely other thing to say that the War on Women isn't really going on. The Republican Party has actively restricted women's access to abortion, contraception, mammograms, pap smears, has actively cheered women not being paid equally to that of men and employers being able to refuse hiring women on the basis of pregnancy or if she's a single mother, and the Republican Party actively goes out and uses rhetoric bashing single mothers (you do this constantly John). The Republican Party as an elected body engages in policies that are very much anti-woman and then complains like little children when people hold them accountable. The Republican Party- the party that whines consistently about the maturity of others (you do this constantly John)- is the same party that, when being held accountable for their actions, can't whine fast enough about how it's unfair for them to be held accountable for their actions. Comments given by an elected official and policy passed by an elected official are far different than comments given by a pundit. I will gladly meet you half way and state that it's hypocritical to support Bill Maher when Bill Maher uses such harsh language against women. This is why I don't personally like Bill Maher. And I'll even meet you further and say that I don't get why Maddow turns a blind eye when he does it, but not when someone else does it. However this is ENTIRELY different than someone like Rick Santorum- who was in 2nd place in contest for the POTUS nomination- goes out an d says that he believes that families should be single earner homes instead of 2 earner homes and that whenever possible the mother should be a stay at home mom. This is far different than Rick Santorum going out and saying that he wants to abolish Roe vs. Wade and say that women who are raped should be legally forced to bear their rapist's baby. This is far different than Rick Santorum going out and saying that he doesn't support adoption because it would deny children the right to know their birth parents and that women who put children up for adoption should be screened for mental illness. These are all POLICIES that he's advocated for and that he has personally put himself into the position of making into policy.
The War on Women came from the bible.
Mosaic Law from the book of Exodus regards women as "property" incapable of making rational decisions. That's the kind of stuff motivating conservative politics this year.
Religious dogma is not OK in government policy. Fine for an ethics discussion, but you can't migrate biblical concepts into public law without violating civil rights. This kind of toxic thought-process needs to stay in sunday school.
If you carry "women's health" policies from conservative republicans to the logical extreme, you end up becoming Saudi Arabia, where it is illegal for women to drive and illegal, and where women must have written permission from the husband to take the children on vacation - all because public law says women aren't smart enough to figure out things like that because "it is written in the Quran".
Seriously.
Conservative states that ban Sharia Law tend to become Sharia-Law states that terrorize women shortly afterwards (I'm thinking of Oklahoma and Arizona).
What kind of woman would you expect to vote for that?
I'm thinking crazy.
You certainly draw traffic, see? Everybody's good at something! What the heck is wrong with secularism, besides it not being bound to superstition for legitimacy?
You have to realize the main difference in Bill Maher's rhetoric, and that taken by people on the right. Bill Maher has attacked public individuals who he feels are crazy. Rush Limbaugh attacked a private individual and then went on to any woman that uses birth control. That's what got people upset. It's different when you go after one person versus a whole category of people.
That said, I agree with Bill Maher that Limbaugh has a right to say that kind of hate. In the United States of America, even hate speech is protected under the first amendment.
Maher is largely an embarrassment and his periodic outbursts of misogyny are well-known. Wow, some lefties are woman-hating a-holes. So glad you're here to tell us these things.
At least Bill Maher is not using his legislative power to attack woman. Would you rather be called a bad name, or lose your rights... The republicans are far more effectual in their misogyny.
Interesting that we found out this week that the Obama administration pays women less than men...
It comes from a leftist false narrative, Mouzer - a divisive one, because that's what the left does.
There IS no 'War On Women.'
Because the left needs women to help them win the presidential election (and they need to hang onto their lead in this 'focus group,') they created this absurd notion that the Republican Party is against women. It's been the constant drumbeat from the Debbie Wasserman Shultz's of the world, the NOW President (sheesh, how many times has SHE been on the evening MSNBC shows in the last month?), etc. It finally got to the level of absurdity when Hillary Rosen belittled Ann Romney for never 'having to work a day in her life' - and even the left distanced itself from that cretinous statement.
Any 'wars' that people are experiencing currently are the economic struggles of the day - high gas prices (that Obama and his administration go out of their way to do nothing constructive about), food prices - and the domino effect caused by that. Leftism avoids what people are TRULY concerned about - and instead focuses on stupidity like contraception: something that is readily available to all and a complete non-issue.
The Democrats KNOW they can't run on the abysmal record of the president - so they have to create make-believe demons...and the demon of the month is the 'war on women.'
MechTrek, since the entire MSNBC evening line-up makes its living belittling conservatives every single night of the week, calling them to task for things they say, somebody oughta point out the obvious hypocrisy when those same hosts appear on stage with individuals who say things that are far, far worse....
It's not "obvious hypocrisy" when most on the left will admit he's a sexist jerkwad. I would like if he were ostracized in professional circles, but pointing out something everyone knows and most will acknowledge is not exactly groundreaking on your part..
Nope this was debunked w/in 24 hours. Turns out PBO pays all of his female staffers slightly above that of his male staffers except for his top advisers. Beyond this, this is a red herring argument. Again a red herring John does NOT show hypocrisy. At the worst you'd be saying that both PBO and Republicans are engaging in a war on women. And this is justified because....? Thought so
Nope. When I asked that question I was being rhetorical since I answered my own question in my post (if you had bothered to read). The war on women is a phrase used to describe the anti-woman policies that the Republican Party have actively pursued in passing. As I stated only Republicans want to be able to do whatever they will and get away w/ it. Republicans pass these policies and then get pissed when women have a negative reaction to these policies.
The reason why people believe the Republican Party is against women is because of the policies they past. If you don't want people to think this way then STOP advocating these policies. That's called responsibility.
Democrats and the left ARE NOT the ones who brought up contraception as an issue. John more than 2/3rd's of your posts have been about why you don't believe in contraception. You are the one bringing contraception up in this fight. You are then complaining that women have a negative reaction to the policies you're advocating. That is what you aren't getting. The right brought up the issue of contraception. The left never did this. And now the right is bearing the consequences of their actions.
By this same logic I could argue that Republicans KNOW they can't run on their abysmal record of legislating and governorship, so they are attacking the POTUS for a war on women. Since that was, after all, Romney's line as well.
Wait, I missed this. What is it I (as one of the people) am TRULY concerned about?
the entire MSNBC evening line-up makes its living belittling conservatives
What's a "conservative"? I bet John does not know.
There IS no 'War On Women.' The left... created this absurd notion that the Republican Party is against women.
There is no Republican war on women because Bill Maher has a potty mouth. So there.
The Democrats KNOW they can't run on the abysmal record of the president - so they have to create make-believe demons...and the demon of the month is the 'war on women.'
John just made that up.
By this same logic I could argue that Republicans KNOW they can't run on their abysmal record of legislating and governorship, so they are attacking the POTUS for a war on women.
Mouzer gets it. Psychological projection is key to understanding the right-wing mind. They call lies "facts" and facts "lies" and think it makes them smart when anyone can see they are playing projection games.
The term 'anti-woman,' of course, is in the eye of the beholder.
I personally believe (along with millions of women across this country) that abortion is one of the ultimate 'anti-woman' procedures. The number of women this has scarred is incalculable. Yet, the left - more than seemingly anything else - views this as the ultimate 'freedom' and hides it under the innocuous non-threatening terminology of 'reproductive rights, ''choice' and 'right to privacy' - always centering on the abstract discussion of newly-discovered 'rights' and never centering on the details of the procedure itself or the millions of post-abortive women still suffering.
Untrue....not a word was spoken in the public square about contraception in years (a completely non-issue since contraception is available to all) until Sandra Fluke took center stage and demanded that others pay for the birth control of her fellow classmates in law school.
This is an ad populum argument. How many people agree w/ you or disagree w/ you is irrelevant to whether or not your policy is or is not OK.
It is not YOUR responsibility to protect women from their choices. That is called personal responsibility. You cannot protect women from this nor is it your prerogative for you to do so. Additionally it is entirely sexist for you to propose that it's YOUR job to protect women from themselves. You are not the moral decider of the world
Choice is the ultimate freedom John. Being responsible for your choices and being held accountable for your choices is freedom. Freedom does not necessarily mean roses and fluffy kittens. Sometimes you will exercise freedom in such a way as to cause harm to yourself. Hopefully you will avoid this. The only time the government intervenes w/ your choice is when your choice will inhibit other people who aren't you. As a pro-forcingwomentocarrybabiestheydon'twanter you would be better off arguing that the fetus is a person deserving of protection than you would arguing that women 'suffer' from the choices they make. By the way who the hell are you to decide if a woman is or isn't suffering?
.........Sandra Fluke did not come out of nowhere John. She came to testify before Congress because Republican Congressman Darrel Issa was holding hearings on contraception. He is the one who brought up the issue of contraception. The ONLY reason why Sandra Fluke got any media attention is because Darrel Issa chose not to have her testify before the official congressional panel. Because of this her testimony- via C-Span- was put on the Internet. Once her testimony was put before the Internet it started 'going viral' as is the phrase and Rush Limbaugh picked it up on his talk show. He then attacked Sandra Fluke and people became outraged over it. Rush Limbaugh and Darrel Issa brought this on themselves. Democrats had nothing to do w/ the national attention that this issue got. It was the fault of REPUBLICANS. They brought the issue up, they refused to give her testimony which made it go viral, and then they attacked her.
Once again John here is what you are uncomprehending. When you make a decision you must suffer the consequences of that decision. You, as a Republican, constantly harass the poor and 'the left' as being irresponsible. Yet here, again, you are attempting to excuse Republicans (and women apparently) from consequence. Which doesn't make any sense. You hate the poor because you think they are lazy and should suffer poverty as a result of their laziness, yet then you want to protect women from exercising decisions about their body and protect Republicans from suffering any negative media backlash from the stupid things they say and/or do?
I do not understand
@Covah- rubber, meet glue
You spoke too soon Covah ;-)
Unbelievable nonsense, Mouzer. You make personal accusations of me that are completely without foundation.
I never ONCE demeaned the poor; I HAVE chastised those who choose to live off the fruits of others through government taxation, viewing it as an 'entitlement' (healthy people who don't seek honest employment for literally years (remember Pelosi's welfare office interviews? - oh, wait, I'm sorry, those were just 'stereotypes' so we should pretend those interviews don't exist.) Multiply those few people interviewed - by literally millions - and you have a serious, serious problem....).
Why was Issa holding the hearings? What was the point?
Because Darrel Issa felt that it was an outrage to have insurance companies cover contraception? Your argument was that nobody cares about contraception and that it's a non-issue. If it's a non-issue then having your insurance company cover something that's already cheap and easily accessible wouldn't be a big deal. But apparently it was for the right. And the right decided to have a hissy fit about it and that hissy fit then lead to the congressional hearings. This issue was blown up looong before Sandra Fluke came about.
You don't demean the poor? You have personally called the poor lazy. You have personally referred to people who use 'entitlements' as being lazy. You have been asked over and over again to provide evidence for the fact that they are completely able bodied or that there are millions using welfare for 'literally years' on end and you have never once produced any evidence of it.
Here is you as of April 14th. Here you are calling people on welfare lazy
The right's own Maggie Gallagher has been stumping against birth control for years. Bush's abstinence-only education programs told outright lies about the use and safety of birth control. Contraception is very much in the public square, has been for years, and conservatives have been the ones keeping it there.
Because you do constantly attack people as being lazy or irresponsible. You also constantly attack women.
Here you are calling women who want contraception to be covered by insurance dependent and irresponsible
Here you are calling welfare recipients ungrateful
Here you are stating that poor women should not have sex
Here you are insulting Sandra Fluke outright
Here you are saying that transgendered people should not be treated equally and even a step further are insulting what it is to be transgender and calling it 'nonsense'.
In all of these instances you are attacking women or calling people lazy or some other name on the basis of the fact that they receive welfare. Tell me again how my accusation was wrong?
To add to this, it was Issa's choice of exclusively male witnesses to speak at the hearing, and his rejection of Democrats' one profferred witness (Fluke) that really blew the issue up. The proposition that the left made this a big deal is unsupportable. The facts say the opposite.
A complete and total lie. I NEVER specifically called the poor 'lazy.'
Yes - those who are forever receiving government benefits - and who are perfectly able to work but willingly choose not to - are lazy. Absolutely. This could be an individual who is defined as 'poor; it could just as well be someone who is not.
When there are 45 million people on food stamps in this country - and yet jobs at fast food restaurants/supermarkets, etc. go begging - there is something radically wrong with something in this country. I pass by the same 'Help Wanted' signs in restaurants and supermarkets every single day.
Meanwhile, my son - who just turned 16 years old late last year - went into a restaurant in our neighborhood and got hired on the spot as a busboy/host....thankfully, he will learn the benefits of earning an honest day's pay for an honest day's work - an ethic that will benefit him for life.
Who the hell do you think the people are that are receiving government benefits John? They are not millionaires that you're talking about. You do not have a problem w/ government benefits going to businesses, churches, or wealthy people. You only have a problem w/ benefits going to the poor. And the poor you call lazy.
Thank you- you've now openly contradicted yourself
Provide evidence that this actually happens and it happens outside of the margin of error rate
I told you this last time and I get really sick of this. You get debunked and then instead of thinking about what it is that you say you end up repeating the exact same statement over again. Which is even more annoying when considering that you call everyone else a leftist who regurgitates talking points. Newsflash: when you repeat the same line over and over again John to an argument that has been debunked- you're the person regurgitating talking points at that time. You were told last time that this is post hoc reasoning. You assume that the help wanted signs are not being filled by people who are on food stamps. You assume that people taking food stamps are not working. Do you have evidence of either of these assumptions? No. Do you even know what percentage of people on food stamps works? Do you know how many people have came to look for a job application? Have you ever owned a restaurant or a fast food chain? Do they often hire homeless people? How do you think they'd react to a welfare recipient coming into their office and asking for a job?
That's the real problem fundies have with "entitlement" programs: the lack of strings attached for them to pull. The private charity route allows guilting and shaming the people being helped, so they're made well aware how much they owe their benefactors. The "grateful" individual would accept Jesus into their hearts, you see. How dare the government just give money away to those ungrateful secular bums. It's just projection again: conservatives feel entitled to compensation for their generosity, and they want it in the form of influence over the people they help.
So, the hearings were NOT about contraception per se; it, apparently, was the left forcing all insurance companies to cover all contraception - even though it might go against the personal beliefs of their insured?...
Mouzer, if you honestly believe that - you certainly don't want to put it into practice. Oh, SURE, you're a firm believer in 'choice' when a woman wants to abort her unborn (fill in the term during the development).....but 'choice' goes out the window on virtually everything else.
The left wants taxpayers to pick up the tab for all of the ramifications of these 'personal choices.' They want our taxes to pay for all of Planned Parenthood's services due to other people's 'choices'.....they want our taxes to pay for a sea of cradle-to-grave 'entitlements' for all (health care, schooling, housing, welfare, food, etc.).....and on and on.
Since 'choice is the ultimate freedom,' should taxpayers have the 'choice' on whether to pay for the 'choices' of others through their taxes? I've yet to meet a leftist who says 'yes.'
The left is high on 'choice' when a living entity is growing inside a mother's womb - but that's where it stops.
Again - a lie. As I CLEARLY stated, I have a problem with benefits going to those who refuse to work. Whether they are 'poor' is irrelevant.
12 years ago, I lived across the street from a guy who lost his job. He received government benefits for almost a year. Those benefits were going to dry up at the end of a year, so he began looking for a job 11 months into the process - and he found one a few weeks after he started seriously looking. The guy did NOTHING for a year, perfectly willing to sponge off the taxpayer for almost a year....and there are MILLIONS and MILLIONS like him.
The simple truth is that he was able to take advantage of a system that's, obviously, pretty easy to take advantage of. Again, WHY look for a job if the government is going to pay you to sit on your behind? .....and the government wants to expand these unemployment benefits for what - 96 weeks??? Sheesh!!!
This choice already exists. Anyone who doesn't want to pay taxes to live in a developed nation is free to go off-grid in any of the many places on earth where the governments of those nations have no jurisdiction. Funnily enough, very few people who complain about paying taxes actually make this choice.
The health care act passed w/ bipartisan support and was based almost word for word on a bill presented by Republicans w/ the exception of 3 sections. I do not know why you would label this 'the left' on an issue that became law by both Republican and Democratic votes. That would be, at the most, 'the middle.'
YOU made the claim that contraception is a non-issue. If contraception is a non-issue then there would be no personal beliefs against contraception. By making this statement you are a. admitting you are being hypocritical in your logic and are b. admitting that it has always been, in fact, the right wing who is responsible for the anti-contraception outrage. Thank you and thank you.
You do not get to opt out. Either you pay for the costs up front or you pay for them at a larger extent later on. This is the problem w/ living in a society- when you live in a society what other people do will effect you in some way and vise versa. If you do not want to pay for Planned Parenthood then you will have to pay for the larger costs of supporting unwanted children. If you don't want to pay for governmental services to support those children then you will have to pay the larger costs to healthcare, police, and cdc services as a result of your actions. The cheapest route is Planned Parenthood. You can either do this the conservative way (which is the intelligible case in this instance) or you can do this the liberal way (which is the intelligible case in this instance). The conservative way is to pay the least amount (for contraception and PP services) up front thereby avoiding the exuberant amounts later on. You do not have the choice of opting out so long as you live w/in America so you can pick which one you want. You then vote for your congressional representatives to do what it is that you want. And this is how you exercise your choice. Do not pretend here like you are somehow being ganked by the system.
Again we can either be conservative in our choice here as to how to run our society or liberal. If we are conservative then we invest in our society via things like health care, schooling, housing, and other infrastructure products. This then returns more money later on and costs less in the long term. OR we can be liberal and deny these things upfront, thereby costing us more money in the long term. Again I do not think you understand what the terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' actually mean.
Yes it's called voting. No one has ever proposed that this right be taken away from you
John people who have wealth cannot receive welfare benefits of any kind. Your problem isn't w/ someone who doesn't want to go to work, but that doesn't use any direct government services. Your problem is specifically w/ people who refuse to go to work who receive government benefits. All of those people are going to be poor by definition. You are either admitting here that you do not understand the policies that you are railing against OR you are openly admitting that you are lying. Which one is it?
Then you are openly admitting to being complicit in welfare fraud which is a felony crime and carries w/ it a 15 year sentence and up to $200,000 in fines. Why did you not turn him in to the social services office? You are, again, excusing your lack of responsibility here and are instead pushing it on to someone else. If you honestly knew someone who wasn't looking for a job then this means this person was receiving unemployment by ganking the system. If that is the case- and you knew about it- then you are openly admitting here on this thread that you were complicit in committing a felony crime.
The government has safeguards to protect against abuse. However no system is perfect. You apparently did not attempt to correct for the imperfections of the system by turning him in. Should I now contact the FBI and give them your IP address since you are now openly admitting to committing a federal crime and ripping off the very program you complain you don't want to be abused?
I should amend this to say welfare (or at least what you consider to be welfare) benefits of any kind. The wealthy receive hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies from the federal government every year. The middle class, of course, also receives medicare, social security, and presumably you have no problem w/ the GI Bill, the VA, or student loans. The welfare we're talking about here are programs like unemployment, food stamps, WIC, and public housing. These types of welfare have income caps that limit middle class and upper class people from receiving said benefits. Hence it should be labeled that your problem is specifically w/ poor people welfare. I'll make sure to correct for that in any future reference.
And to clarify, b/c I expect it will be necessary:
I am not saying "If you don't like the laws, go live somewhere else!" I am saying that if you cannot come to terms with one of the fundamental principles of the social contract developed nations make with their citizens, you should really think about whether you ought to be living in that society at all.
What's a "conservative"? I bet John does not know.
Bet's still on. The first lie of every conservative is saying "I'm a conservative".
I have a problem with benefits going to those who refuse to work.
John is lying. When the unemployment rate was 4.4% just a few years ago were the people real hard-working and when the rate went to 10% did that mean they got lazy all of a sudden? No, it did not. John is playing the game "blame the victim" which they call "personal responsibility". That is, when a Republican enjoys his "individual freedom" to rob you blind it's your fault for not exhibiting "personal responsibility" by letting them rob you blind. And Republicans WILL rob us blind for as long as we let them or until this nation goes bankrupt from the theft of public funds with tax cuts for the rich.
MechTrek gets it, above #17.36. John mocks God by judging others.
I have a problem with benefits going to those who refuse to work.
John had better get down on his knees and ask forgiveness, if he is a Christian.
Yes, when I think of personal responsibility, I think "do your part" and "be good to others insofar as you are able." When today's conservatives say personal responsibility, they mean "take care of your own damn self."
John lets the cat out of the bag here:
The left wants taxpayers to pick up the tab for all of the ramifications of these 'personal choices.' ...they want our taxes to pay for a sea of cradle-to-grave 'entitlements' for all (health care, schooling, housing, welfare, food, etc.).....and on and on.
That is because the left wrote the Declaration of Independence which states "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" If the people expect a service it's the government's responsibility to provide the service, that is what we have governments for. Governments serve the people, not the rich, as in "We the People" which is from another source document which John may or may not recognize.
Since 'choice is the ultimate freedom,' should taxpayers have the 'choice' on whether to pay for the 'choices' of others through their taxes? I've yet to meet a leftist who says 'yes.'
It appears John is unclear on the workings of a representative democracy.
I will work from the assumption that your neighbor admitted to you that he was simply taking a poorly paid vacation for a year rather than actively seeking employment.
If you total your car in an accident - and insurance will pay $30,000 - will you say - "No, I'll get by with a used car - just give me $5,000 - I don't want to sponge off of the other policy holders." No - you will want the $30,000 because you are "entitled" to it - but you did not pay $30,000 into the insurance over the period of time you owned the car. The difference will be paid from the contributions of the other policy holders - you are sponging off of them.
Unemployment insurance is just that - "insurance". Institutions pay into this Federal insurance policy. Oh you say - people are sponging off of the businesses - no - HR departments calculate this cost and all other "compensation" costs when they offer contracts to their workers. So the actual insurance fee comes from the workers. The workers receiving unemployment insurance are as "entitled" to it as you are to your "$30,000".
Assume an individual was making $55,000 a year and had been working for a few years. They are laid off (can't quit or be fired for cause) - their yearly compensation would be about about $20, 400 depending on the state's policy - for a period of time that is partially controlled by the state. This puts a considerable financial crimp in ones life and is not preferable to employment.
The purpose of unemployment insurance is to give the recipient the opportunity to find a new job with a similar salary to the previous job. Could they go out and work for $7.50 an hour instead - perhaps - though you might find that a lot of businesses do not want to hire people with doctorates to fry hamburgers. If they take a $7.50 job, it will be almost impossible for them to return to a $50,000 + job when one opens up. If you have a friend in HR - talk to them about this. Too bad there is not a Federal or state service corps for those receiving unemployment that would not carry the stigma of minimum wage jobs - I think your assumption that the unemployed prefer unemployment (and the severe loss of income) to employment lacks merit.
Next, there is plenty of work out there if you are "portable". If you rent and are single, you can pack up and take a good job anywhere - though in this market the competition is significant. It becomes more complicated if you have a mortgage, and your spouse has a secure modestly paying job with health insurance. In today's housing market - "a walk away" might be the only option for a family forced to move - destroying one's credit rating for years. Unemployment insurance gives people the opportunity to "hunker down" and wait for local employment opportunities to improve.
Apparently the state of Missouri has provided no over sight for it's unemployment compensation - certainly something to take up with your state legislature. Other states have rather rigorous checks and balances with multiple required reports of weekly applications for employment, workshops , and penalties for compliance failures.
The financial condition of many families is rather precarious - even for the majority who have played by the rules - done nothing wrong. The loss of the major bread winner's job is devastating - unemployment compensation is critical. So Sheesh!! yourself.
When today's conservatives say personal responsibility, they mean "take care of your own damn self."
Then they have the gall to call themselves "Christian". That is because they are not smart enough to read the gospel and have no clue what it says. Their dog-eat-dog society simply has no justification in the gospel or American source documents. In fact that society is defined as social Darwinism, where only the fit survive through struggle, the struggle named by Nietsche as " der Wille zur Macht" which in turn justifies the rise of a fascist dictator.
Adam Selene gets it. "Unemployment insurance is just that - "insurance". Institutions pay into this Federal insurance policy." Yep. It's part of FICA. I do not believe johnlorican has a clue how FICA works and probably never will, it's just to hard.
Never try to teach a Republican economics; it wastes your time and it annoys the Republican.
The left [was] forcing all insurance companies to cover all contraception - even though it might go against the personal beliefs of their insured...
John is unaware of the suspicion Catholics bring on themselves in civil society by putting the authority of the Pope in Rome ahead of legal government. Here is a case in point, where Catholics were baited into attacking civil government by Republicans for political gain, and the Catholics played right along.
While it's easy for John to simply repeat slogans he does not understand, those who DO understand those slogans tell a different story.
RABBI DAVID WOLPE (Sinai Temple, Los Angeles): Well, I think that it is true that Jews have a certain perspective on this as minority traditions do because generally, when religion seeps into the public sphere it's not our own, and so the separation of church and state in part is a protection for minority traditions.
Also, from the same source:
ANDREW SULLIVAN: ... the Republican Party, a party who is-- now has a majority and defined by a particular religious faith, evangelicalism or far right Catholic hierarchy, and that is making many people feel that faith and Jesus is about politics and power and partisanship, in ways it's turning off an entire generation.
Also, from the same source:
SALLY QUINN (The Washington Post): I think that separation of church and state is in the eye of the beholder.
Yes, indeed, Sally Quinn. What is "religious freedom" for Catholics is seen as an expansion of religion into the public sphere and a threat to religious freedom of others, and a disgrace to the Catholic church in the eyes of others.
This is why, as I was saying earlier, it's post hoc reasoning to state that because you see a help wanted sign, but still hear that someone is unemployed, this must mean that the unemployed person is not actively seeking a job. Businesses will not hire you to work for their company if you are overqualified. They will also not hire you if you are underqualified. They will also not hire you if you are over the age of 55. If you are in your 20's and you have a degree you cannot get a job unless you have previous work experience in a degree related field. The longer you have been out of work the harder it is for you to find a job- businesses will not hire people who have been out of work for a long period. Having a legitimate reason for being out of work- whether it be because of school or health- will not always satisfy an employer. People who have felonies also find it nearly impossible to get a job even if they have degrees and have served their time and have no other encounters w/ the law. Now there are, as always, exceptions to the rule. But exceptions to the rule are not the norm- they are uncommon occurrences that can not be planned on.
The Pope in Rome is the ONLY religious authority who bans contraception and abortion. The Bible itself does not, there is NO other authority to cite in opposition to contraception and abortion.
Wow, that guy is equating secularism with Islamism? He clearly doesn't know anything about Islamism and is lying about secularism. Rather than explain Islamism, I'll just link to a video of an Egyptian Islamist, and he can explain some aspects of it in his own words.
A thought occurred to me and so now I'd like to further expand on the above comment that I made (and yes I am well aware that this comment was an expansion to another comment I made). Had Alexandra Pelosi been standing outside of a student loan office and you heard a student saying 'I'm trying to get whatever the government will give me [so I can go to school]' would you have been outraged John? I mean the student could be working 2 or 3 jobs to pay for his tuition and he could take loans out from a private lender thereby saving taxpayer money. So wouldn't your reaction to that case be the same?
@engineer- ah no the point of the article, if you get a chance to read it, is that apparently America is ran amok w/ too little religious intervention. The point of the article is that we have fanatic 'secularism' being practiced in this country. John was not stating- nor is the article stating- that Islam or Prager are secularists.
Yes, I understand that. Prager is trying to claim some sort of equivalency between Islamism and a strawman "secular fanaticism". It's a ludicrous comparison, not only because he's lying about what secularism really is (by claiming it to be a type of fanaticism), but he also has no idea how radical Islamists are.
I did not assume the article was claiming "that Islam or Prager are secularists". Maybe my original post was too terse, I'm not sure.
I thought you were stating that John made that claim about the article. You are fine @engineer- I misunderstood you. It happens, no worries ;-)
It's ridiculous for him to complain about secularism if only because w/in the article Prager talks about Christmas being a non-denominational holiday. That right there should tell you that Prager has no earthly idea what the word 'secular' means or that Prager is lying. I got about that far and then rolled my eyes and closed the article.
Thanks :-).
Prager - all it needed was a little re-write.
"The Muslim world is threatened by religious fanaticism. The Western world is threatened by Dominionist religious fanaticism.
Both seek to dominate society and to use state power to do so. Both seek to eliminate the Other -- for Islamic fanatics, that means non-Muslim religions and secularism; for Christian fanatics, it means any religion that is not Christian Dominionist and the elimination of any limitations on their public invocation of God in the work place and in state and Federal legislation."
Fanatics cannot exist without hate - hate is and always has been an easy sell - anyone with a loud voice and hair in his ears can sell hate. Try selling people on love - that's a different story - a tough sell - not impossible - but kind of like getting a camel through the eye of a needle. God only knows where one could find a salesman capable of closing that sale.
Now everyone who has actually read the entire Quran stand up - OK, let's find a booth in the back of the restaurant and continue this conversation.
Adam_Selene
There is the potential for a useful discussion on "religious liberty" we could engage in - any takers?
"religious liberty" means only the liberty for so-called "Christian" bigots to shove their moral elitist blasphemy onto everyone else. Those people are too stupid to read their own Bible or American source documents and become laughingstocks every time they open their mouths. They form an army of zombies under the control of America-hating Republicans like Prager above as they march against the secular republic that the hate so much.
Covah,
Nailed IT....thank you!!!
The one question that needs to be asked every time one of these people suspend their "campaigns commissioned by God" is, of course, "Did God tell you that you had other more important things to do, or was it the voters?"
My favorite God thing is a letter sent to the Assembly of God Church in Bushnell Fla. by American Family Publishers: "God, we've been searching for you. What an incredible fortune there would be for God! Could you imagine the looks you'd get?
The quote Bill Maher was searching for about Reagan's Iran Contra denial was:"A few months ago I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and my best intentions still tell me it is true, but the facts and evidence tell me it is not." Simply breathtaking!
The Maher/Maddow discussion was a little lame because they could not remember details as quickly as they were talking. It's a big subject and difficult to summarize in a few sentences.
The main point they failed to mention is that Reagan was widely know to be senile in his second term and everyone let him run out those last few years. It was not until later that Republicans boosted his reputation. At the time, he was nobody. That is why Democrats did not try to impeach Reagan- there was nobody there, just an old windbag.
It is amazing how Ryan can claim both to espouse his Catholic faith and be a disciple of Ann Rand. Ann Rand was a rabid atheist who notably said "Christianity is Communism's Kindergarten"
@Mark,
Thanks for remedying everyone that Republican economic policies are now based on atheism.
The funny thing is that most atheists don't agree with her social views. They instead go for more of the secular humanist mindset that helping others is the most important thing to do with our time on earth.
The fact that it is the christians who are arguing for Rand's philosophy more so than anyone else, I find ironic.
That's it, Pat Robertson has officially taken the doddering old fool trapped in time award from my Father, sorry Dad you're human again..
Dull day.
Just a thought - if you truly want to promote Christianity - persecute it - check out the underground churches in China.
If you truly want to destroy Christianity in this country, link it as closely as possible to a political party and use all of the marketing strategies you use to promote toothpaste.
Finally read Alexis de Tocqueville (See Chapter 9 in Democracy in America, the Main Causes That Make Religion Powerful In America to see why linking religion to politics is destructive to religion.
Adam_Selene
Jesus in this country is just basically a commodity and a political bludgeon!
"Jesus told me to vote Republican!" T-shirts now on special! 20% off!
Has anyone considered that it is not God's fault? That Bachmann, Cain, Perry and Santorum, for all their excellent health insurance, simply didn't bother to get a good, functioning, hearing aids for themselves?
You can't use the bible literally as a model for how to write public law.
Just to make a point, the book of Exodus indicates ear rings are used to identify "property".
The War on Women was lifted straight out of the bible by people that don't respect the constitutional separation between church and state.
It is a "which is the dog and which is(are) the tail(s) problem.
Factors: Plutocratic right, Theocratic right, neo-conservative right. The "war on women" is just a tactic being used to to erode Federal law and strengthen the laws of individual states. With a favorable Supreme Court decision, First Amendment Rights become State Privileges and other Federal powers become weakened. I'm reasonably certain that the "Plutocrats" are the dog wagging the other two tails - why - money. They have no interest in either religion or governing - the Theocratic right and neo-conservative politicians are simply tools - their "hired help" - their "brown shirts" tasked with helping them extract more wealth from the nation - in effect completing the Leveraged Buy Out that the Bush administration started. Every one gets something - the politicians get to accumulate more power, the Theocratic right gets the power of the state to enforce their "Biblical" laws, and the Plutocrats get lots and lots of money. I'm pretty sure the Plutocrats are in charge - but they really ought to watch their backs.
Adam_Selene
Adam_Selene Very nice post. If I view what is going on in the U.S. with plutocracy in mind then this all makes a lot of sense. It must have been a great day for the plutocrats when they won over the supreme court.
Except you spelled 'they're' as "their", twice.
-(Myself guilty of bad) Spelling Nazi
Trollop
No - I am guilty of Gordian sentence structure - but I intended "their" to be possessive. The Theocratic right and the politicians are their hired help - the hired help of the Plutocrats. Please note that my posts are to be read aloud. Each "-" is a pause to allow the audience time for awesome appreciation of my wisdom - or to give them time for a bathroom break.
Occasionally mercy flushes are in order.
Adam_Selene
Tom,
I seem to be beating my head against the computer keyboard.
State legislation against contraception, gay rights, issues on "war on women" and "religious liberty" are all "tactics" - they are not strategies. The Plutocrats are "amoral". Absolutely any "tactic" that will make the extraction of wealth easier is acceptable. To them, the entire nation - including the population - is a "natural resource" to be "clear cut", "fracked", "mountaintopped", or "slash and burned" - stewardship is not in their vocabulary - dominion is. Many decent people with the best of intentions are getting sucked into providing support to the Plutocrats.
Truly - we know not what we do.
Adam_Selene