What the heck is going on with US Politics?
- Thread starter treide
- Start date
wiccanpony
Official Freak Bar Witch
\'legislative sin\' .........oh come on woman!! wake up and smell the brimstone:cussing::twisted::beer::twisted::beer::twisted::beer::twisted:
it is pretty amazing how bold the religious right has gotten lately. For a good while they were riding a wave of momentum, however I think people are sensing more an more a coming backlash. I actually am quite looking forward to seeing the results of the next general election.
funnymouth
Active member
gads!
sure...shes honest about her opinions, and she wont be elected (thank goodness).
did you note the part about her supervising the recount? shady poop.
sure...shes honest about her opinions, and she wont be elected (thank goodness).
did you note the part about her supervising the recount? shady poop.
I\'m with Vike on this one. I\'d rather somebody be up front about their stupid beliefs
There is no shortage of political stupidity, though. It\'s not just confined to the \"Christian Right\". Remember Ray Nagan (mayor of New Orleans and Liberal Democrat) declaring that he was going to rebuild a \"Chocolate New Orleans, the way God intended it to be.\"
There is no shortage of political stupidity, though. It\'s not just confined to the \"Christian Right\". Remember Ray Nagan (mayor of New Orleans and Liberal Democrat) declaring that he was going to rebuild a \"Chocolate New Orleans, the way God intended it to be.\"
paintingploddy
New member
Was she being honest though, or was she telling the religious right what she thought they wanted to hear?
Are there interviews out there in which she expresses a different position to a different audience?
Are there interviews out there in which she expresses a different position to a different audience?
Part of the problem, I think is that the American public is genuinely uneducated about the issue. This makes it easy for opportunistic ideologues to skew the debates by tripping people up on a few small details and getting as much mileage as they can before people catch on.
1) For example, Many do actually believe that the words, \"separation of church and state\" are actually in the constitution. But of course the phrase actually comes from a letter by Thomas Jefferson. So, there are a host ideologues who will say that separation of church and state isn\'t in the constitution, then move on to complain about the ignorance of those they have tripped up, all-the-while ignoring the fact that the real debate is whether or not the principle is an accruate paraphrase of the Establishment Clause. (Ironically the same people who reject separation of church and state often take it on faith that \"states rights\" is a genuine constitutional principle.)
2) For years ideologues like Jerry Falwell have been lying to the American public about the significance of certain Supreme Court decisions. When the Supreme Court said no institutional prayers, Falwell and crowd said this meant banning prayer. That was not a plausible misinterpretation. It was an outright lie. Unfortunately it has come back to bite them on the rear, and some genuinely religious people are suffering for it. After a generation or 2 of people growing up hearing that you can\'t pray in the schools, there are (it seems) now administrators who actually believe children should not be allowed to pray in school. And so some schools are genuinely mistreating children out of fear and ignorance over the matter.
And of course there are gray areas, such as student led prayer before a ball game, references to god in a Valedictorian speech, etc. Many of these are plausibly individual acts, but at what point does the accommodation become an institutional endorsement? ...to say nothing of the many covert attempts to engineer such stuff by schools and make it look like an individual action.
3) Most of the popular debats I\'ve seen on the topic ignore the central question, i.e. the actual role of Christianity in government. We are treated to debates over whether or not America \"IS a Christian nation,\" or whether our government is \"based on the Bible,\" etc. But then these debates usually degenerate into random quote-mining contests. A scholar, David Barton, appears to have literally made up several quotes by the founding fathers endorsing Christianity, and even he has had to retract a number of his quotes. Still, his work is cited time and again by people who mistake random quotes for serious scholarship and appear completely ignorant of the man\'s poor credibility ...he was recently asked to testify before Congress on the issue. Were the debate centered on the notes at the Constituional Convention or the text of the Federalist papers, it would make more sense. Then we would be talking about the actual role that the founders had in mind for religion, if any. But that point is usually lost by the wayside as people rush into a series of references to a single line here or 2 sentences spoken there, all quoted by people who have no idea what the context is behind these statements. (Which brings to mind a favorite retort; \"Quote mining makes baby Jesus Cry.\")
4) Those of us on the secular end don\'t make things much better when we exaggerate the nature of our own case, which happens all-too often. I\'ve lost track of the number of times I have read someone in an online debate claim that most of the founding fathers were Deists or that very few of them were Christian. This is begging for a beating as someone from the other side of the debate then proceeds to tick off the denominational affiliations of one founder after another.
Far better to say that several of the key founders were Deists, that the literature informing government at the time was largely secular, or even to ask whether some of those people would count as Christian in the churches of the people pushing the Christian country agenda. I once had someone point out to me that Jefferson had rewritten the Bible. This was supposed to show that he was deeply Christian. That same person never bothered to think about how he would react to a \"Christian\" that was rewriting the Bible today, much less one that was doing so for the express purpose of deleting all the references to miracles (as Jefferson was). I somehow doubt Jefferson would be allowed in the Christians-only section of most religious message boards, yet many count him as one when debating the heathen.
5) Americans have by now forgotten the degree to which Christians (and Jews) did NOT get along in our early years. People now speak of a common \"Judeo-Christian\" tradition precisely because those groups are now essentially fused in the public mind. Many people might as well be Protestant as Catholic or Baptist as well as Mormon. Many a church-goer has only a dim sense of the difference between these different sects, and for those that do care, it is often little more than a mild disagreement. People have forgotten how serious the difference was in times past. They have forgotten how many used to fight and even kill over these now minor differences. And so we now speak as though all those denominations were all part of one common tradition. All just one big happy family ...except for the Wiccans, the Muslims, the Atheists, the Rastas, etc. It\'s fantastic that Christians have learned to get along with each other and (for the most part) with Jews; it\'s aweful that this same fact is now used as a pretext for marginalizing others.
(Here is an interesting little event, Philadelphia Bible Riots: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Bible+Riots&btnG=Google+Search)
6) Opposition to church and state entanglement is consistently mis-portayed as atheistic in nature. Many of the key decisions were motivated not by unbelievers, but by believers in fringe groups, Mormons, Jehova\'s Witnesses, etc. The abuse that JWs suffered as a result of flag protests by some of their members is astounding. (To say nothing of the collective amnesia that both left and right has about the days when the left was religious. (The Reverend Martin Luther King seems unthinkable in the present climate.) But this is often lost in the debate as people are treated as either being for God or against Him, and the American left is actually treated as synonymous with Secular Humanism and godlessness.
It doesn\'t help that Madalyn Murray O\'Hair took credit for a case she didn\'t even start, but be that as it may, in the public eye to oppose an institutional prayer is now to be anti-religion. The possibility that there may be sounds religious reasons for opposing entanglement seems to have been lost in the current debate. And that is what makes it even harder for some to grasp the possibility that the founders themselves might have wanted the separation which Harris denies.
Rant # 2 for the week...
1) For example, Many do actually believe that the words, \"separation of church and state\" are actually in the constitution. But of course the phrase actually comes from a letter by Thomas Jefferson. So, there are a host ideologues who will say that separation of church and state isn\'t in the constitution, then move on to complain about the ignorance of those they have tripped up, all-the-while ignoring the fact that the real debate is whether or not the principle is an accruate paraphrase of the Establishment Clause. (Ironically the same people who reject separation of church and state often take it on faith that \"states rights\" is a genuine constitutional principle.)
2) For years ideologues like Jerry Falwell have been lying to the American public about the significance of certain Supreme Court decisions. When the Supreme Court said no institutional prayers, Falwell and crowd said this meant banning prayer. That was not a plausible misinterpretation. It was an outright lie. Unfortunately it has come back to bite them on the rear, and some genuinely religious people are suffering for it. After a generation or 2 of people growing up hearing that you can\'t pray in the schools, there are (it seems) now administrators who actually believe children should not be allowed to pray in school. And so some schools are genuinely mistreating children out of fear and ignorance over the matter.
And of course there are gray areas, such as student led prayer before a ball game, references to god in a Valedictorian speech, etc. Many of these are plausibly individual acts, but at what point does the accommodation become an institutional endorsement? ...to say nothing of the many covert attempts to engineer such stuff by schools and make it look like an individual action.
3) Most of the popular debats I\'ve seen on the topic ignore the central question, i.e. the actual role of Christianity in government. We are treated to debates over whether or not America \"IS a Christian nation,\" or whether our government is \"based on the Bible,\" etc. But then these debates usually degenerate into random quote-mining contests. A scholar, David Barton, appears to have literally made up several quotes by the founding fathers endorsing Christianity, and even he has had to retract a number of his quotes. Still, his work is cited time and again by people who mistake random quotes for serious scholarship and appear completely ignorant of the man\'s poor credibility ...he was recently asked to testify before Congress on the issue. Were the debate centered on the notes at the Constituional Convention or the text of the Federalist papers, it would make more sense. Then we would be talking about the actual role that the founders had in mind for religion, if any. But that point is usually lost by the wayside as people rush into a series of references to a single line here or 2 sentences spoken there, all quoted by people who have no idea what the context is behind these statements. (Which brings to mind a favorite retort; \"Quote mining makes baby Jesus Cry.\")
4) Those of us on the secular end don\'t make things much better when we exaggerate the nature of our own case, which happens all-too often. I\'ve lost track of the number of times I have read someone in an online debate claim that most of the founding fathers were Deists or that very few of them were Christian. This is begging for a beating as someone from the other side of the debate then proceeds to tick off the denominational affiliations of one founder after another.
Far better to say that several of the key founders were Deists, that the literature informing government at the time was largely secular, or even to ask whether some of those people would count as Christian in the churches of the people pushing the Christian country agenda. I once had someone point out to me that Jefferson had rewritten the Bible. This was supposed to show that he was deeply Christian. That same person never bothered to think about how he would react to a \"Christian\" that was rewriting the Bible today, much less one that was doing so for the express purpose of deleting all the references to miracles (as Jefferson was). I somehow doubt Jefferson would be allowed in the Christians-only section of most religious message boards, yet many count him as one when debating the heathen.
5) Americans have by now forgotten the degree to which Christians (and Jews) did NOT get along in our early years. People now speak of a common \"Judeo-Christian\" tradition precisely because those groups are now essentially fused in the public mind. Many people might as well be Protestant as Catholic or Baptist as well as Mormon. Many a church-goer has only a dim sense of the difference between these different sects, and for those that do care, it is often little more than a mild disagreement. People have forgotten how serious the difference was in times past. They have forgotten how many used to fight and even kill over these now minor differences. And so we now speak as though all those denominations were all part of one common tradition. All just one big happy family ...except for the Wiccans, the Muslims, the Atheists, the Rastas, etc. It\'s fantastic that Christians have learned to get along with each other and (for the most part) with Jews; it\'s aweful that this same fact is now used as a pretext for marginalizing others.
(Here is an interesting little event, Philadelphia Bible Riots: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Bible+Riots&btnG=Google+Search)
6) Opposition to church and state entanglement is consistently mis-portayed as atheistic in nature. Many of the key decisions were motivated not by unbelievers, but by believers in fringe groups, Mormons, Jehova\'s Witnesses, etc. The abuse that JWs suffered as a result of flag protests by some of their members is astounding. (To say nothing of the collective amnesia that both left and right has about the days when the left was religious. (The Reverend Martin Luther King seems unthinkable in the present climate.) But this is often lost in the debate as people are treated as either being for God or against Him, and the American left is actually treated as synonymous with Secular Humanism and godlessness.
It doesn\'t help that Madalyn Murray O\'Hair took credit for a case she didn\'t even start, but be that as it may, in the public eye to oppose an institutional prayer is now to be anti-religion. The possibility that there may be sounds religious reasons for opposing entanglement seems to have been lost in the current debate. And that is what makes it even harder for some to grasp the possibility that the founders themselves might have wanted the separation which Harris denies.
Rant # 2 for the week...
darthfoley
Active member
The only thing I find surprising is that some people found her comments surprising.
She\'s like Bizarro-Cynthia McKinney.
She\'s like Bizarro-Cynthia McKinney.
I anticipated this thread might garner some interest.
@supervike - I agree that it is refreshing that a politician is upfront about their stance on an \"hot-button\" issue, but I personally find it amazing that someone so far out in right field is the favored candidate in such an important election.
@brimshack - Enjoyed your essay. I\'ll have to do some more reading on the various subjects you brought up. For a country that in theory is founded on the principles of religious, cultural, and ethnic tolerance, I do find it amazing that a political leader would say such things.
@supervike - I agree that it is refreshing that a politician is upfront about their stance on an \"hot-button\" issue, but I personally find it amazing that someone so far out in right field is the favored candidate in such an important election.
@brimshack - Enjoyed your essay. I\'ll have to do some more reading on the various subjects you brought up. For a country that in theory is founded on the principles of religious, cultural, and ethnic tolerance, I do find it amazing that a political leader would say such things.
DrEvilmonki
Active member
To be fair even members of her own party have stepped away from this stance.
I missed #1!!
You raise excellent points. Number 4 is very good not only for the secular vs. religious debates, but for most debates I have seen. Its almost impossible to be completely unbiased on any given topic, but so many people while trying to prove thier side\'s claim will exaggerate and distort the facts to fit with the belief. It doesn\'t matter if its something ridiculous like Rackham Vs. Games Workshop or truly important (like X-box vs. Playstation).
Its probably why I end up being a fence sitter on important discussions.
More praise for Brimshack...
Excellent, excellent points. Well reasoned and balanced. You should definately rant more often.
Its long been a major aggravation to me that every debate now has to be divided into two camps and we only hear from the extremes - people who are willing to exaggerate their cases to the point of out-right lies. I\'ve always figured that if your cause was so weak that you had to lie (or at least intentionally mis-inform) to make your case, it wasn\'t worth much to begin with.
Excellent, excellent points. Well reasoned and balanced. You should definately rant more often.
Its long been a major aggravation to me that every debate now has to be divided into two camps and we only hear from the extremes - people who are willing to exaggerate their cases to the point of out-right lies. I\'ve always figured that if your cause was so weak that you had to lie (or at least intentionally mis-inform) to make your case, it wasn\'t worth much to begin with.
Twice I\'ve read and enjoyed Brimshack\'s dissertations.
It\'s nice to have rational discussions in that manner.
As to this politician\'s reported statements, well she is coming over as blinkered and biased.
Fortunatley I don\'t live in the \'States, but within our political groupings there are equally as \"batty\" statements made.
(State and religion as one, try having Bishops in your second house. We did (or still do, can\'t remember)
At least Americans have to take the credit/blame for voting in the members of your second house, ours is given to us by Birth, Appointment, or Purchase. But that\'s another can of worms!.)
It\'s nice to have rational discussions in that manner.
As to this politician\'s reported statements, well she is coming over as blinkered and biased.
Fortunatley I don\'t live in the \'States, but within our political groupings there are equally as \"batty\" statements made.
(State and religion as one, try having Bishops in your second house. We did (or still do, can\'t remember)
At least Americans have to take the credit/blame for voting in the members of your second house, ours is given to us by Birth, Appointment, or Purchase. But that\'s another can of worms!.)
