Blogcritics: Comments on Don't Put Quotes Around My Faith!

Comment by Steve S

Fri, 24 Dec 2004 21:02:49 EST

Steve- Sure, the right characterizes the left as godless, but I really don't see the left working hard to reclaim the mantle. Conceded. The Left does not have 1,500 talk show hosts, networks like the 700 club, Foxnews, et. al. to make their voice heard. In spite of the claims of the 'liberal media', I have seen numerous reports of stories that the major networks have covered over the last several years. The majority of them have had a conservative slant rather than liberal. I will have to track the link down. News is sensationalism in this day and age, and that is easier to achieve from a 'conservative' slant than liberal. One example that comes to mind is when Bush visited Chile. There was almost no coverage of the protests, because it was wall to wall coverage of the basketball player who attacked a fan. That appealed to the base instincts of people who saw a black man attacking a white man. That is why it got more coverage. The Laci Peterson trial is another example. A beautiful, pregnant woman was killed most horribly by her own husband. To those who advocate that they own the mantle of 'family values' this is perceived to be most shocking and so the coverage panders to them, etc. One ad by one church is nice, but it isn't the same as words coming from the mouths of top Democratic candidates and officeholders. Andy- By Steve's reasoning, it isn't people on the right who don't think. He's saying that Americans default to the right in their non-thinking. Well, yes, but Andy's right too, although again, I didn't mean for it to be a personal attack. The true values of Progressivism (and I'm not talking Democrats here per se), are those of individualism, Mike. Believe it or not. The principle of Progressivism is to help someone get on their feet, if they need it, but to NOT create an institution that then creates a dependency. Such an institution would then need to be fixed. Whereas the true values of conservatism are those of 'humankind needs an authority figure'. Humankind needs moral guidance, humankind needs intellectual and spiritual leaders who are superior and who we all look up to for guidance.' After reading all I have said here the last year, Mike this should come as no surprise. How many times have you heard me say I am one of the biggest advocates of personal responsibility? The Right (and I'm NOT speaking of ANY specific individual here) looks to the OUTSIDE for guidance, for the definition of what is right and wrong, and for the structural framework of what society should be built on. And they have convinced EVERYBODY that it is entirely the other way around and that is what Progressivism is trying to do. People in the middle sway back and forth, buying into the most credible voice of the moment. People in the middle, vote on base values, even when the platform runs against their own best interests. This is why you will have people on the verge of poverty voting for the platform that panders to the corporate elite. Once your party is able to control the language and define what base values are, and who support and who condemns these certain base values, then you win the middle base. It does NOT matter if it is true or not. Just if you convince people of it. One example is that of the war on terror. Many social progressives, including many on this site, will tell you that they support the progressivism of liberals and Democrats, but they voted for Bush on an assumption of who is the best candidate who can fulfill the base value of security. Whether it's true or not is moot. See? The real problem is that the Dems lack a clear leader that could have toppled someone formidable as Reagan was, let alone GW. I'll always love the Dems because they are the closest party to true Progressivism, but they have more than one problem. They can get tied to corporate interests just like the Repubs. They can pork barrel with the best of them. They make too many promises to too many people that they know they cannot keep. The promises to my community is one good example. I do not fault them for not being able to achieve equality for my community, and I do not fault Clinton when he had to sign the Defense of Marriage Act, because these things are necessary for their political survival at the time. What I do fault them for, is making the promises to us in the first place, when they know they will not be able to keep those promises. I also fault my own community for continually falling for it. But that doesn't mean we turn from the Dems, because no one else who has the capablility in this two party system will even be interested in achieving equality for us. What we need to do is put aside the promises and look at the bigger picture. Equality can only be achieved after a lot of obstacles are removed first, and during an election campaign everybody should realize those obstacles won't be removed with the following term. That should be stated and the platform should be exactly how those obstacles are going to be tackled. But it's not. The promise is for equality, which again is impossible to achieve in one election cycle.

Comment by Mike Kole

Fri, 24 Dec 2004 18:47:06 EST

Steve- Sure, the right characterizes the left as godless, but I really don't see the left working hard to reclaim the mantle. One ad by one church is nice, but it isn't the same as words coming from the mouths of top Democratic candidates and officeholders. Andy- By Steve's reasoning, it isn't people on the right who don't think. He's saying that Americans default to the right in their non-thinking. I'm not buying that for a minute. People in the middle sway back and forth, buying into the most credible voice of the moment. When the Dems at long last again trot out someone with wide appeal, they'll have America's ear. The Dems couldn't find someone to beat Bush, and that's remarkable, because he was extremely vulnerable. The real problem is that the Dems lack a clear leader that could have toppled someone formidable as Reagan was, let alone GW.

Comment by Steve S

Fri, 24 Dec 2004 15:45:08 EST

No, Andy. People on the Right have allowed the Right Wing to dictate to them, what the Left represents. It has nothing to do with my train of thought or anybody disagreeing with me. If the people listened to the Left, then they would know that the Left is not Godless. But they don't, they allow Bill O'Reilly, Pat Robertson, etc. to tell them what the Left represents. Has nothing to do with moronic ability. Lashing out at a difference of opinion, is another thing entirely though.

Comment by Jim Carruthers

Fri, 24 Dec 2004 15:35:42 EST

Andy, while you are celebrating the feast of the birth and death and resurrection of Osiris, and while you caper under the Lord of MisRule, please practice safety. Wear a condom when you fuck morons (and smart people too, though that is very improbable).

We're all fucking morons! Just because someone doesn't follow your train of thought doesn't mean they're not thinking.

Comment by andy marsh

Fri, 24 Dec 2004 15:28:07 EST

SO, by your reasoning Steve, peopl on the right just don't think. We're all fucking morons! Just because someone doesn't follow your train of thought doesn't mean they're not thinking. Anyone who disagrees with YOU is not thinking clearly??? What bullshit! Merry Christmas!

Comment by Steve S

Fri, 24 Dec 2004 11:14:12 EST

It is the Right who define the Left as 'Godless Liberals' because of the Left's position on things like abortion and homosexuality. The Left has never been Godless though. We have our agnostics, our athiests and our spiritually awakened all together. "we don't want to legislate morality like those guys do"....Their success in driving this message home simulataneously created the widespread perception that Democrats and the left ran screaming from faith-based morality. Most people can understand the distinction if they think clearly about it. They just don't think clearly about it, they abdicate thought to the extreme Right and just accept what they are told. The recent news item about the church who's ad was rejected by the major news media, because it was all accommodating indicates that there have always been people of faith in the Left. It is the Right that defines most issues, most debates, and most perceptions, NOT the Left. Unfortunate, but it is what it is.

Comment by Mike Kole

Fri, 24 Dec 2004 08:24:30 EST

Natalie- The left is in the position it is on values and faith because it worked so hard to hammer the most extreme visible characters of the religious right: Falwell, Robertson, etc. In demonizing them, Democrats went out of their way to say, "we don't want to legislate morality like those guys do". Their success in driving this message home simulataneously created the widespread perception that Democrats and the left ran screaming from faith-based morality. Democrats failed to build bridges to faith-based groups in order to create a balanced perception. There was so much that they could have built bridges on with, say, the Catholic Church on issues like hunger and peace, but they were unwilling because of the Church's positions on abortion and homosexuality. The left is going to have to work mighty hard to reclaim some ground in this area. I hope they do it, because I agree that the right has no monopoly on faith or morals. But if you abdicate faith as the Democrats did, why be surprised or disappointed in the result?

Comment by Natalie Davis

Fri, 24 Dec 2004 02:39:31 EST

I am so SICK of the assumption that the right-wing holds a monopoly on morals, values, faith, and religion. I'm religious and faith-based, and I both support marriage equality and the legality of abortion. So, try again...

Comment by RJ

Fri, 24 Dec 2004 01:23:49 EST

Hmm. So, if the "religious right" supports something, and I also happen to support it, then I have given "deference to the Religious Right as the countries [sic] moral and intellectual superiors"? Is that your position? If so, please explain my position on the "War on Drugs" and prostitution...

Comment by MCH

Mon, 20 Dec 2004 14:55:28 EST

Re comment #39; I'm astonished, bhw - do you mean the world doesn't revolve around Bobby Elliott? Hhmmm, learn something new every day...

Comment by Steve S

Mon, 20 Dec 2004 12:04:01 EST

Regarding comment 38: RJ, bhw is right, they are both faith-based values. Just because you have prejudice against them does not negate that fact. To wit, you have commented on abortion threads before about the rights of the fetus. While you might be agnostic, you are applying moral judgement on the woman and her body based on spirituality/soul (of the unborn). And you have given ample moral judgement for your disgust of the Right to Marry. Your continual deference to the Religious Right as the countries moral and intellectual superiors, lay down clearly, for all to see, the rationale for your conclusions, regardless of your belief in a diety.

Comment by bhw

Mon, 20 Dec 2004 09:29:01 EST

Nope. They're being driven by the evangelical Right.

Comment by RJ

Mon, 20 Dec 2004 09:20:54 EST

"The anti-gay marriage amendment: faith-based value. The anti-abortion crusade: faith-based value." I'm agnostic, and I both oppose gay marriage and abortion-on-demand. So, try again...

Comment by RJ

Mon, 20 Dec 2004 09:18:16 EST

"Who cares if homosexuals marry? Who cares if anybody gets married other than close friends and family?" If we are to alter our cultural mores to allow the former, why continue to disallow the latter?

Comment by Steve S

Sat, 18 Dec 2004 15:38:41 EST

rephrase that: before the 1700's.

Comment by Steve S

Sat, 18 Dec 2004 15:36:11 EST

Additional thought: It was during the 1700's, that our Founding Fathers came to America to escape taxation. Yes, there was definitely taxation during the industrial revolution, to claim otherwise is to gloss over the beginnings of this country. Taxation can go to far, as the examples of Pharoahs, conservatism in Europe and the warlords of Rome have pointed out. But it is the checks and balances of a democracy that keep that from happening again. Only when conservatism erodes those checks and balances does the taxation have the possibility of being a detriment to society. When we first came to this country, we paid the British no taxes, and that was when it was possible for people to better their lives. But then again, there was no government here at the time either. Life was certainly dangerous. There has to be a government, and it cannot exist without taxes.

Comment by Steve S

Sat, 18 Dec 2004 14:18:24 EST

the key improvement was that THE LABORER GOT TO KEEP *ALL* OF HIS WAGE, losing none to the coercive forces of government. There has been no time in world history where a laborer did not pay taxes. This is erroneous. What you are talking about is from Scrooge's viewpoint, not Bob Cratchits. It also takes an educated populace to uphold democracy, which is why since 1947, conservatives have been attacking the educational system, with Reagan as Governor slamming the final nail on the coffin with the ending of the last free university in America.

Comment by Steve S

Sat, 18 Dec 2004 13:54:21 EST

You have substantiated my analysis that there has been no time in world history, which lack of government intervention has helped to create and sustain a middle class, fundamental to democracy. The first time you really saw the average person begin to improve his lot was with the industrial revolution YOU need to go reread your history books. Since it is the holiday season, allow me to use Dickens 'A Christmas Carol' as an example. Bob Cratchit worked full time for Scrooge. Bob could not provide a Christmas dinner for his family. Bob could not afford health care to save little Timmy's life. Bob put up with YEARS of abuse from Scrooge because he had no alternative, no chance for a better life and NO recourse with which to better himself. While A Christmas Carol is fiction, it is an accurate representation of the times in which you are referring. It was very much an aristocracy. It was landlordism, and when usury and monopolies ran rampant. Yes, the US has come closest to true Democracy. Democracy is so new to the world it is still undergoing constant refinement. It will always need to do so, to accomodate the changing social times and cultures. But the US has come closest to achieving Democracy by the creation and the sustaining of the middle class, which has only been done with government intervention.

Comment by Mike Kole

Sat, 18 Dec 2004 12:47:33 EST

Steve- better re-read your history, or at least better understand the terms you are using. Let's look at the examples you used: Pharoahs controlled labor completely- slave labor. Labors were permitted to keep none of the fruits or their labor. It was confiscated in whole, to be used at the discretion of the pharoah. There was zero free market for labor. The Roman Empire begrudging allowed some free market for labor, while slavery was still rampant. The rate of taxation was quite high. Again, the fruits of one's labor were generally consficated for the pleasure of Caesar's discretion. The system of nobility so common throughout Europe again used slavery, in the form of serfdom. Feudal lords again confiscated the fruit of labor, allowing no free market for labor. Thus far, all systems further empressed citizens into their armies. In fact, the first time anything approaching a middle class began to arise with the merchant classes. Look at China or Europe, and you will see that the only wealth that formed outside of where those who claimed the mantle of God to use force to coerce the fruits of others' labor was this budding capitalism. It is with great interest to me that those who held the original power of force looked down on these people as a challenge to their positions, while those held in the usual servitude looked down their noses at the merchants for their improved position in life. (Not much changes, does it?) The first time you really saw the average person begin to improve his lot was with the industrial revolution, where, although the conditions were appalling by any standards, the key improvement was that THE LABORER GOT TO KEEP *ALL* OF HIS WAGE, losing none to the coercive forces of government. The rapid growth of the middle class was NOT caused by the benevolent intervention of a government, but rather, it formed IN ITS ABSENCE. I'm not sure you've ever been so wrong about something posted here, Steve. I can't meet your challenge, because there hasn't ever been any sort of utopia. Sorry. Never has there been a government that has simultaneously permitted all citizens the right to the fruits of their labor, no matter how great or meager those fruits, while allowing full participation in the process of governing. The United States has come closest to that sort of ideal, but still fell well short. Every other system of government is far closer to barabrism and slavery. The difference between slavery and servitude is only in degrees. The same moral principal and technique of application underlies each.

Comment by Steve S

Sat, 18 Dec 2004 10:50:49 EST

To take from one's earnings to redistribute it to another is an act based on the belief in the inherent moral correctness of the act. Actually, Mike, no. It is the required cornerstone of democracy. If you look at WORLD history, from the Pharaohs, to the thugs who ruled Rome, to the conservatives who terrorized France with an aristocracy for 1,000 years, all across the continents, across all human history the middle class has been non-existant. It is a new phenomenon. Should we leave the 'free market' up to the free market, then we have aristocracys, where nobility rules and all they rule are the impoverished. It takes government intervention to create a middle class. This is done through progressive taxation, regulations on business, labor laws, etc. And without a middle class, you can have no democracy. Some of us aren't fooled by Conservatives and know damn well what has been going on since Reagan. So to take money from the rich and redistribute it to the rest is NOT based on some Robin Hood type of morality. I challenge you to give me ONE example in world history where a democracy existed where the government didn't have an obligation to have a hand in the marketplace. Dirtgrain, you were missed. I see by Flanagan's original post, which sickens me too much to respond this early in the a.m., that 'political correctness' is another term that has been co-opted by the Right, to have a negative connotation, and is no longer challenged as such by the Left. I doubt I could respond much better than Dirtgrain anyway.

Comment by Shark

Sat, 18 Dec 2004 10:00:48 EST

Dirtgrain, I love you, maaaaaan. PS: You've been missed. xxoo S

Comment by Mike Kole

Sat, 18 Dec 2004 09:56:27 EST

The Dems backed themselves into a corner by unilaterally decrying morality as a basis for policy. Dems have long decried any religious influences on policy making to be an imposition of morality. The problem with that is that ALL policy making is the imposition of some morality. To take from one's earnings to redistribute it to another is an act based on the belief in the inherent moral correctness of the act. Etc.

Comment by Dirtgrain

Sat, 18 Dec 2004 09:32:19 EST

Not enthusiastic? Whatever? How about we are scared shitless that the Puritans will rise again in America and start some witch trials. Church and state don't mix well. Note from Osama: Dear American Religious Fundamentalists: It is with great joy that I see that you are following the model of the Taliban in your attempts to become a fundamentalist, wacko state. When you mix religion and state, it allows you to do so much more in terms of violence, and religion is the superior form of control to mere government. Labeling all who you wish to conquer as evildoers and then attacking them is great step for your cult. . . I mean your lovely "faith and policy" mixture. Isn't it ironic that the Taliban is now your model for the ideal state--when some of your own country's founders, Puritans, were a model for the Taliban. May the cycle of death and violence due to the mixing of church and state go on forever, Osama "The irony is, when you hear them speak on the topic, you can literally hear the quotation marks around that word." That is because the word has been crafted into a weapon of mass destruction and a mind-control device by right-wing, religious wackos. If people don't show enthusiasm for this, what will you Puritan/Taliban bastards do? Hang them? "President Bush, on the other hand, loves God." How do you know this? All politicians are liars, so you can't be sure. Perhaps it is all a show put on to manipulate the masses (see history for how religion has been used by politicians and rulers to manipulate the masses for EVIL). Am I supposed to be enthusiastic for a "lover of Jesus" who kills for profit? "And to those of us who also love God, whether Jew, or Christian, or Muslim, we hear the sincerity of his words when he tells us that our prayers "uplift him," and strengthen him." I get icy chills as I contemplate all of the evil that has been done in the name of religion. As for the uplifting, what the hell are you talking about? Is he Joan of Arc? He can sense the supernatural? Does he hear Jesus, too? How do you know the Devil is not just making him say this? Maybe he is the Anti-Christ. What should we do then? Exorcism? "We are not asking elected officials to "impose" any given set of values on America, we are asking them to help prevent secularists from imposing THEIR values on America." That is not logical, Captain. That is like saying, "I'm not killing you; I'm just preventing you from imposing your life on me." "Stop defending the rights of the few to impose their secular faith upon the vast majority of Americans." What is left when you subtract both the religious and the secular? The irony is that so many, regardless of their religion or lack thereof, have the same basic ideal moral principles: don't kill, be nice, don't steal, don't harm, . . . Why then do we need religion to mix with the state (especially the religion of killers for profit)? Control, sucker (clearly your mind has been conquered). "We are asking them to uphold the principles of the Constitution, not undermine them in the name of political correctness." Don't come with this weak crap. See this post. "At the very least, stop watching from the sidelines while liberal judges reinterpret the Constitution in an effort to sterilize society from all religion and faith." In what way has the freedom of religion been jeopardized? Or are you just upset that there are restrictions built into the constitution to prevent religious fanatics from imosing their religion on the masses? "To those with whom faith and religion are important, this is a no-brainer." You don't have to convince me.

Comment by Shark

Sat, 18 Dec 2004 07:01:21 EST

When God's army begins assembling and grumbling about how they're being repressed by the elitist heathens -- and they start making noise about how their nation/state needs to get with the "religious program" (pogrom? a typo?) -- I tend to curse out of fear and frustration -- 'cause history is littered with bloody examples of 'what happens next.' *When I hear "religion" and "faith-based", I immediately reach for my gun. *ironic variation on a theme - heh.

Comment by Shark

Sat, 18 Dec 2004 06:56:51 EST

urthshu: "...I will never quite understand why public discussions of Religious matters brings out foul language..." Sorry, babe, but I was burned at the stake in a previous life... ...by some VERY "religious" people. So be a good Christian and just forgive me.